CNN’s hilariously lame defense of Mao-Loving White House Advisor Anita Dunn
CNN just can’t abide people telling anyone the truth about how Obama’s cronies are either admitted Communists, like the disgraced Van Jones, or just think Commies are awesome, like Anita Dunn. Comrade Dunn is the White House Communication Director who gave what appeared to be a commencement speech wherein she clearly states that Mao Tse-tung is one of her political heroes. She goes on a long, serious discussion explaining exactly why Chairman Mao was so wise and how his wisdom could guide her audience in their future endeavors. We talked about this on the podcast yesterday. Here is the clip from Beck, with the video of Dunn.
So now Anita Dunn, according to CNN, is “firing back” at Beck. Actually it is Dunn giving the utterly laughable excuse that she was joking about the whole thing and blaming a dead Republican political strategist, Lee Atwate, for the whole thing.
White House communications director Anita Dunn fired back at criticism from TV commentator Glenn Beck on Friday, saying that a Mao Tse-tung quote Beck took issue with was picked up from legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater.
“The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me,” Dunn told CNN.
As for Beck’s criticism: “The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat — at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.”
The issue isn’t whether Lee Atwater ever quoted Mao. A simpleton knows you don’t adopt somebody’s philosophy as your own simply by quoting them. But when you quote them and then explicitly say the person is one of your biggest influences, then you make it your own. So Dunn’s lame attempt to source the quote back to Atwater and have that somehow serve as an explanation for what she said is patently ridiculous.
Taking its cue from the White House, CNN , the 4th most popular cable news network and fact-checker of Saturday Night Live skits skewering the president (even Jon Stewart snorted at that one), picks up the canard and runs with it.
But it’s not just Dunn, a Democrat, who has used Mao as someone she reads.
Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog group, points out that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also a Fox News contributor, quoted Mao in a 1995 Roll Call profile.
“War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood,” Gingrich said, citing Mao.
Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush “encouraged me to read a Mao biography.”
Sometimes people read books to understand the depravity of their opponents and those who would destroy them. After all, lots of Republicans like Rove and Gingrich have read Mao, right along with Rules for Radicals and Dreams from my Father.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
This does not in any way prove that Anita Dunn is a Communist. It does prove that she’s a crappy communications director.
Mao Tse Tung accomplished more in his life than you could ever dream, miserable peasant. Even Newt Gingrich paid homage to his genius when he quoted him at the 1995 Roll Call profile, “War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/index.html
So are you either incompetent, or a liar? I know the chairman would see your corpse tossed into the pile with the rest of the reactionaries.
I know the chairman would see your corpse tossed into the pile with the rest of the reactionaries.
I rest my case.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hmmm. When someone is your “favorite political philosopher,” doesn’t that mean you generally like and approve of what they stood for? Isn’t that sort of the definition of favorite political philosopher?
Adolph Hitler killed between 6-11 million people. Is Hitler anybody’s favorite political philosopher? If so, who might they be? Skinheads, neo-Nazis, anti-semites?
Joseph Stalin killed 20 million people. Is Stalin anybody’s favorite philosopher? If so, who would they be?
Mao Tse-tung killed 70 million people, more than Hitler and Stalin combined. Is Mao anybody’s favorite political philosopher? Yep, Anita Dunn’s.
People might name as their favorite political philosophers, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, among many others on the left and right. But the thing is that normal people’s favorite political philosophers are usually folks who tried to better the lives of others or served the cause of freedom. Normal people do not have mass-murdering Communists as their favorite political philosophers.
Obama has surrounded himself with Communists, Communist-sympathizers, anarchists, terrorists, racists, radicals, and perverts. The likes of Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright, Kevin Jennings, and Bill Ayres tell us a great deal about our president. You can try to explain it away, but the evidence of who our president is and what he believes is very clear.
When someone is your “favorite political philosopher,” doesn’t that mean you generally like and approve of what they stood for? Isn’t that sort of the definition of favorite political philosopher?
No. Not at all. Why do you zero in on Mao, ignoring her invocation of Mother Teresa? Aren’t you worried that she wants us all to accept as G-d’s word everything said by a man in a pointy hat in Rome, too?
Anyway, I’m glad you include MLK in your list of preferred political philosophers. In his day, a lot of defenders of the discriminatory status quo tried to associate him with Communists as well. That being the case, I’m not sure why you’d engage in the same rhetorical tactics that people used against him.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, Mother Theresa helped orphans. Mao killed 70 million people. I think we can separate the two. Mother Theresa qualifies as a normal person’s political philosopher (though the term ‘political’ is a little odd as applied to her). Mao still doesn’t qualify. Including mother Theresa doesn’t get Dunn off the hook.
MLK was a Republican who opposed the racism of Southern Democrats like Robert Byrd. MLK believed in judging a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin, and yet all the Democrats talk about is how to give somebody a leg up over somebody else based on the color of his skin. They talk about how a wise Latina should be able to make a better judicial decision than a white male. As Morgan Freeman said, if Democrats would just refer to blacks as Americans instead of blacks or African-Americans, it would be a good start toward a color-blind society.
In response to another comment. See in context »Robert Byrd, you funny!
In response to another comment. See in context »Fine, MLK was a Republican who never would have stood by the GOP’s Southern Strategy and would have been called a reverse racist by Rush Limbaugh if he were alive today, too. By labeling people you disagree with Communists, you’re engaging in the same political tactics that defenders of the discriminatory status quo, Republican and Democrat alike, used against Dr. King.
In any event, the point I should have made earlier is that saying that you appreciate someone’s observations on politics does not make them a Communist. For instance, I believe Vladimir Lenin wrote some very insightful things about how politics work. I disdain the political and economic system he constructed using them. Does this make me a Communist? Anita Dunn is not; she’s just a campaign hack with a tin ear for the seriousness of governing a nation. Watching that speech really illustrated for me why President Obama is having so much trouble controlling his message, and I appreciate you posting it, even if I don’t appreciate the hyperbolic conclusions you’re drawing from it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Do you find it inconceivable that there are Communists in the United States? Obama was, according to the National Journal, the most liberal Senator in the Senate. That makes him politically the most closely aligned to the Socialist and Communist ideologies than any other Senator. He has associated with admitted Communists and folks who intensely dislike the United States. He has governed in a decidedly anti-capitalist manner.
Since there have always been Communists in the United States, why bend over backwards and torture logic to deny that Obama and/or his team are at least sympathetic to the Communists? The facts are there, their statements and actions are there.
I think there are plenty of Democrats who voted for Obama that would be disgusted by these things. I would be curious to see whether you think there is a distinction within the Democrat Party between those who would find these radical Communist type associations abhorrent to basic American traditions and those who think there is nothing to see or worry about here at all. If you do, do you consider the former group to not be ‘real’ Democrats?
In response to another comment. See in context »What wonderful insights did Mao have into politics that Anita Dunn admires? Something about “find your own war?” She couldn’t find someone else to quote to make that point? And she really thinks it is OK to quote this stuff to high school students and think they will see the “irony” of her quote? Did anyone else realize that at one time Mao was Propaganda (eg, Communications) Director?
http://leightonweese.squarespace.com/journal/2009/10/16/mao-tse-tung-his-political-philosophy-and-anita-dunn.html
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m with you until you lump in Kevin Jennings with the rest of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/jennings.student/
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ll take 80% agreement.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lions, tigers, and bears oh my!
Do you condemn the people who call Obama’s critics ‘racists’ or ‘right wingers’? Do you condemn those that called the tea party goers ‘teabaggers’?
Just wondering how outraged you are with the practice of labeling, is it just the target?
This was meant as a reply Michale Roston–new to this
In response to another comment. See in context »NewsBusters: Anita Dunn Blames Lee Atwater for Quoting Mao
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/10/17/anita-dunn-blames-lee-atwater-quoting-mao
This red baiting of yours Bill is more absurd than most of your usual posts, I’m sure you believe this crap but what I can’t figure out is why you and your kind keep at it. It didn’t work during the election and it’s not working now, the president’s popularity ratings are pretty damn good by any account. This entire “fifth column” argument being pushed by your side is why you and yours are increasingly becoming a joke to all but about 23% of the American electorate. But please by all means keep it up, I can’t wait for the day when the GOP is forced to change it’s mascot from the elephant to the woolly mammoth. With supporters like you it will be sooner than I had dared to hope for.
Admit it Brian. You walk around all day just waiting for my next post. For better or worse, you just can’t resist.
Which is more galling to you, the fact that a winger got through the perimeter here at True/Slant (h/t to the bosses for their diversity program) or that your core belief system has been shaken to core in just a few short weeks by copious applications of the truth?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not easily galled and I’ve already told you I find you amusing. I’ve never seen anyone so driven to be a cliche, it makes me chuckle. Now back to my point, this tactic is proving very ineffective for your side, why keep it up? Do you really think the average American gives a rat’s ass about commies real or imagined?
In response to another comment. See in context »Do you really think the average American gives a rat’s ass about commies real or imagined?
Oh, very much so. After all, for anyone over 40, the Cold War is not just in the history books. We were there.
In response to another comment. See in context »That must explain why McCain won by such a landslide. BTW I checked out your other web site “Patriot” Whatever, the pic of you groveling to Michelle Malkin is priceless dude!
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian, where was that Malkin pic? Was it on Patriot Room? It’s there, but old, and I was wondering how you got to it.
In response to another comment. See in context »They may not mind the communist association, but Mao was not just a communist. He killed 70 million people: half due to famine from his Great Leap Forward (wonder if that’s what Anita Dunn admires) and half due to murder. Forget the communist thing. Anita Dunn admires a murderer. By the way, I voted for Obama. Less a full on endorsement of him and more of a rejection of Sarah Palin. So categorize me now.
In response to another comment. See in context »http://patriotroom.com/article/photos-from-the-washington-d-c-tea-party
Nice pic of you and the welfare/tax cheat too.
Funny, I don’t remember seeing Tim Geithner (though it was right across the street from his office), Nancy Killefer, or Tom Daschle. Just me and a few like-minded pals.
In response to another comment. See in context »And you are judged by the company you keep, so how did you like teabagging? Bill Maher (he’s a comic with a show on HBO) make a very funny joke about tea bagging last night. Shame you hadn’t asked Joe Gannon about that one before you folk decided to name your movement after a sex act.
LOL
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve been following this thread. You’ve really made a compelling case; name-calling, condescending personal attacks and sex jokes.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am still waiting for a substantive counter-point to Bill.
The entire premise of his post is absurd, I choose to comment in a manner I find appropriate, if that’s a problem for you elistoltzfus that’s really not my problem.
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t hold your breath for a response. It ain’t coming. You see, Alisky’s Rule Number 5 for Radicals is: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” So we get ridicule but no response.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry – there was one other think I wanted to mention.
Van Jones. You are absolutely right that, at a point in his life, Van Jones was an avowed communist. But, you know, its not like he’s been spending his time organizing the workers to participate in the overthrow of the U.S. government. In recent years, he has spent his time on environmental issues and made major contributions to helping the people in New Orleans in their effort to overcome the ravages of Katrina.
I understand that politicians will dredge of the past for political advantage. That’s just the way it works. But it always troubles me when commentators, who profess a perspective and knowledge that make them worth reading, can’t bring themselves to see a person for what they are and what they’ve done.
By simply writing of Van Jones as a communist without caring nor bothering to paint a fuller picture for the reader, is cheap..and cheap is best left to the politicians, no?
He may have had to go from the White House. I understand that. But, as a political commentator – rather than a flack for your particular point of view – don’t you feel any responsibility to tell a truer picture before slapping on a label designed to tall half the story about someone?
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, Communist is sufficient in my mind. If you think that doesn’t disqualify him, then it is your job to defend him. My principles say that kind of affiliation, at any point in his life(I think the guy is only in his early 40’s), is a deal-breaker. Apparently the White House agrees with me.
In response to another comment. See in context »I guess I missed when it became illegal to be a “communist or socialist” and bared one from public service. Silly me, I thought we lived in a democracy. You see Bill that’s why this post should only IMO be addressed as completely absurd, as the heart of your piece is a concept totally apporant to what this country is supposed to be about.
In response to another comment. See in context »To Brian in NYC:
We live in a republic, not a democracy.
Bill is a voter. I am a voter. We get to have a say in what disqualifies a “public servant” (since they, theoretically, serve us)
If you don’t value private property, you would love feudalism. Check it out.
In response to another comment. See in context »leightonweese I guess you missed the part where Barack Obama won the election.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill in NYC. I voted for Obama. What does that have to do with anything? I didn’t realize a vote for Obama was a vote for Dunn, communism, or Mao.
In response to another comment. See in context »leightonweese the winning candidate gets to decide who serves in his/her administration (save the exceptions where senate confirmation is required). If you don’t like the president’s choices you the option of trying to vote him out of office at the next election. You don’t get to set the criteria to hold public office, that’s congress’ job.
In response to another comment. See in context »To Brian:
That’s true, except when you have more than 30 czars running the government.
In response to another comment. See in context »I must have missed the “czar clause” in the Constitution.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian in NYC: If I could fire Anita Dunn right now, I would be doing that, not complaining about her on a message board. (I would alternatively accept a public apology for any ambiguity, along with acknowledgement that Mao did terrible things). Obama and Dunn need to know that her comment is not acceptable to the voters, and that they ignore the voters at their political peril, however delayed that may be. Of course, how do we even know how the voters really feel, since the 24 hours news cycle, acting like a puppy dog obsessed with whatever ball is thrown in front of it, has decided that balloon boy is more important?
If this had been a Hitler quote, ironic or not, it would be in the mainstream press non-stop. As it should be. But Mao killed way more people.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m sorry leightonweese, once anyone invokes Godwin’s Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law that pretty much terminates conversation for me with that person on this or any future topics. Have a good evening.
In response to another comment. See in context »The White House does agree with you and it isn’t my interest to defend Jones or not defend Jones,
In response to another comment. See in context »My interest is in how you are so adverse to considering that communist belief is, somehow, a real challenge to the American way of life. Those days really are long over, whether or not you got the memo.
I also have a problem with disqualifying anyone for their past beliefs. Ronald Reagan once once a raging liberal. He changed his mind. So, what’s wrong with that? Maybe you’re still the same guy you were in college, but I’m not. I’ve grown…changed…been influenced by all the different experiences life has presented. Should my beliefs at any particular snap-shot of my life, short of having been a convicted felon, bar me from qualifying for political office, elective or appointed?
Things change. Why not be a ‘real person’ and acknowledge that?
I am responding to Rick Ungar. It didn’t give me the option to click directly on “reply to” on his message, but I hope this ends up in the right place.
Rick, when you mentioned the other side calling Obama Hitler, what inspired that comment? Because in this comments thread, I had not seen anyone call Obama Hitler.
I would like to see this thread get back on the original topic, which was Anita Dunn referring to Mao as one of her favorite philosophers. I am mainly concerned about how far we as a society, particularly our media, have slipped into meaningless subject matter that we aren’t hearing more outrage about a mass murderer being praised for his philosophies. I am not even considering the possibility of someone in the Obama administration perpetrating violence on that level. I am more concerned with how apathetic we, particularly the media, are about studying the history and spreading knowledge about how this happened and how to prevent it.
I am also opposed to communism. Again, we can’t just be apathetic and assume that the US will never go too far in that direction, just because we didn’t start that way. The solution to that is also education (doing the difficult research and going beyond the clips) which the media is falling short in despite, or perhaps because of, having 24 hours to fill.
I found this quote from Wikipedia interesting: “Mao Zedong Thought asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie.”
In response to another comment. See in context »“People might name as their favorite political philosophers, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and many others.”
I’d go for the many others.
Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill were not political philosophers. The were politicians and leaders who were influenced by philosophers.
In Madison and Hamilton you have a case but they were influenced heavily by some recognized political philosophers who kind of invented the modern version of the term. You know all that enlightenment stuff you learned in that boring political science stuff from college. So both our forefathers and the rest of us owe a debt to
Philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau from the land of pom frites.
Mao, a peasant, was influenced by Marx, Lenin and Trosky translating their thoughts to the agrarian situation in China. His history is complicated and the figure of 70 million accurate if you take into account that half the figure was due to a famine. I am not defending the man he like Stalin, with whom he made a bizarre pact was a bad character.
I will say this there is a difference between a philosphy and its execution. While enlightenment age helped produce America it also produced the French Revolution which didn’t quite live up to its slogans.
Besides Pat Buchanan found many good things in Hitler’s Germany and his misunderstood philosophy.
But there is a silver lining to the struggle over China and Mao’s success: Where would capitalism be without the commies to make all the products we buy over and over.
I bet the WalMart brothers loved Mao as well.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I agree that Mother Theresa and Mao were not philosophers, but I took Anita Dunn’s definition for the purposes of the comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »I feel like I’m witnessing a debate in 1955.
Does Bill really believe that the Obama White House is bent on leading us down the road to communism? This would be the same White House that poured billions of taxpayer money into Goldman Sachs so that they could achieve some rather awesome earnings and reward their employees accordingly.
Maybe Bill didn’t get the memo but Communism failed. Even the communist counties are capitalists now. Move on, bud. We have lots of new, relevant things to argue about!
And does Bill actually think that someone like Newt Gingrich would only read books by alternate thinkers simply ‘to understand the depravity of their opponents and those who would destroy them’?
I can’t say that I have much in common with Newt, philosophy wise – but I have enough respect for him to believe he might read such a book because he’s interested in what the author had to say rather than simply to better understand his enemy.
I like to cut the ‘other side’ a break and give them the benefit of the doubt, but locking oneself into arguments long since gone by is just so neanderthal.
I like it much better, and am far more entertained, when you say silly things about more relevant subjects.
Maybe Anita Dunn should move on instead of poisoning the minds of high school students by associating Mao and Mother Teresa.
We should take the Jewish mantra of “Never forget” to heart when we think of Mao and all the lives he ended prematurely and the countless others who did not die, but suffered through a brutal regime.
The philosophies of a man whose twisted search for power led to such travesties has no place in an admiring speech, however ironic.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian in NYC: Close your eyes all you want. The truth is still there.
The wikipedia article you linked to says “It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.”
Mao killed many more than Hitler. I don’t care if he did it for right-wing extremism or left-wing extremism. I’m not saying this to stir up people for no reason. It is absolutely disgusting to me that this is being ignored, rationalized, or mocked. We HAVE forgotten – or never even knew, for people who like me were born after Mao’s death – what he did.
Your flippancy, as if murdered Chinese should not be honored as much as murdered Jews, is shameful.
In response to another comment. See in context »I feel like I’m witnessing a debate in 1955.
Me too.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The entire premise of his post is absurd, I choose to comment in a manner I find appropriate, if that’s a problem for you elistoltzfus that’s really not my problem”
No problem; only you never make a point. Insults and condescension prove that you are jerk; not a superior intellect
You’re entitled to your opinion, thanks for sharing.
In response to another comment. See in context »“You’re entitled to your opinion”
No thanks to guys like you. Your media heroes couldn’t debate the substance of the Tea Party participants so they had to do what guys like you do best; name calling, race-baiting and mockery.
They were called tea-baggers and racists and right-wingers, and Pelosi was so fearful she thought violence could break out any minute.
It’s not asking too much to have a civil debate, but it is clear that the left thinks they deserve to be in power, and if the little people don’t like it then; we’ll mock them, ignore them or if we must pay attention discredit them by calling them racist.
So yes I am glad I can still state my opinon, because the left is trying damn hard to criminalize disagreement with obama. If you disagree you are racist.
People sure didn’t like Bill or Hillary wre they all racist?
I am sure one of those Alinsky rules refers to this too.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, the left kind of do deserve to be in power, having won the White House and both houses of Congress.
In response to another comment. See in context »That said, name calling, on anybody’s part, is never particularly useful. But when ‘the other side’ resorts to calling Obama “Hitler’ doesn’t that kind of remove them from the higher ground you seek to claim?
Sorry for the multiple posts. I am trying to figure out how this system places comments. I am responding to Rick Ungar. It didn’t give me the option to click directly on “reply to” on his message, but I hope this ends up in the right place.
Rick, when you mentioned the other side calling Obama Hitler, what inspired that comment? Because in this comments thread, I had not seen anyone call Obama Hitler.
I would like to see this thread get back on the original topic, which was Anita Dunn referring to Mao as one of her favorite philosophers. I am mainly concerned about how far we as a society, particularly our media, have slipped into meaningless subject matter that we aren’t hearing more outrage about a mass murderer being praised for his philosophies. I am not even considering the possibility of someone in the Obama administration perpetrating violence on that level. I am more concerned with how apathetic we, particularly the media, are about studying the history and spreading knowledge about how this happened and how to prevent it.
I am also opposed to communism. Again, we can’t just be apathetic and assume that the US will never go too far in that direction, just because we didn’t start that way. The solution to that is also education (doing the difficult research and going beyond the clips) which the media is falling short in despite, or perhaps because of, having 24 hours to fill.
I found this quote from Wikipedia interesting: “Mao Zedong Thought asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Communism failed in the Soviet Union, but the last time I checked there are still a few kicking around. They are bent on their Workers’ Paradise, just as they have always been. In the United States, you get there by nationalizing private companies (auto manufacturers), nationalize industries (health care), and by making unions as strong as possible. This kills capitalism and freedom, two prerequisites for Communism. Then you are on your way.
That’s really besides the point, capitalism isn’t enshrined in the Constitution. That perhaps is the greatest flaw in conservative ideology, not understanding that a more “socialistic” economic model for this country is somehow unconstitutional.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually Socialism is prohibited due to the limited functions of government. What is left is capitalism.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know you believe that but the vast majority of Supreme Courts decisions say you’re wrong. I think it’s pretty universally accepted by most legal scholars (except of you tenthers) that the commerce clause gives congress very wide latitude to regulate just about every aspect of economic life in our modern times.
In response to another comment. See in context »Is there any value or interest in actually using our history to test this theory? The very fact that you are warning against that which would lead us to a communist or socialist society kind of proves the error of your statement. We’ve heard this at many junctures in our history. The arrival of Social Security and Medicare certainly resulted in the loudest shrieks of fear that we were on the road to socialism. Yet, here we are all these years later and you’re busy warning about communists and the road to socialism. Apparently, social security and Medicare didn’t send us down the the road to the worker’s paradise after all. If it had, we would already be there and you would have no reason to strenuously warn against it.
In response to another comment. See in context »How did a young guy like you get so stuck in the arguments of the past? You have the benefit of history – something your predecessors did not have- and still you don’t get it.
“They were called tea-baggers and racists and right-wingers”
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….
(Eli you should chill, you’re going to trow a clot if you keep this up!)
You are boring; when you want to discuss a topic come back. But if you are only going to hurl insults; I will consider myself insulted by Brian without you needing to trouble yourself with a response.
In response to another comment. See in context »Cool!
In response to another comment. See in context »I just thought I should tell you that I’m not a communist nor have I ever affiliated with communists. I’m hoping that’s sufficient to keep me from being called before your personal UnAmerican Activities committee, senator, er, Bill.
Bill, people of good faith can have a sincere debate about the balance between a free market and government intervention. But I’m not torturing logic. Instead I think you’re inventing a false link between a suspect claim that Obama is the ‘most liberal senator’ and an assertion that this means he is ‘anti-capitalist.’ In fact, I think if you asked anyone in the fringe in this country that considers themselves a ‘communist,’ (and who Democrats on the whole quarantine themselves from) they would not agree with your assertion in any way that President Obama is the most anti-capitalist President in our country’s history.
Ultimately, I think you have a narrow interpretation of ‘capitalism.’ I don’t know how much it has in common with the governing philosophy that was undertaken in this country in the past decade. The way I see it, the Bush administration, with some groundwork laid in the Clinton years, gave away large parts of the public trust to rent-seeking economic interests that tend toward monopolistic practice when government authorities do not regulate them.
Whether or not President Obama restores some balance, or in some cases overdoes it by exercising too much state power and regulation, remains to be seen, and to be debated. But I think that instead of having an honest debate about how to deal with national problems, you’d rather call people you disagree with ‘communists’ and ’socialists’ in a political bloodsport that focuses more on scoring points than addressing solutions to commonly agreed to problems.
I think it’s rather insincere, and speaking personally, I think we’d all have a better debate if we elevated our discourse. People on the right should not be asserting their opponents are ‘communists,’ and people on the left should not rely on their own forms of demagoguery (for instance, saying everything done on the right is motivated by racism). I hope we can do that going forward.
I do not consider the vast majority of Democrats to be Communists or even Socialists, but the current crop at the top is clearly the hardest left we have had in our lifetimes.
Bush was great on national security and tax cuts. Terrible on immigration and on social programs like the prescription benefit for Medicare.
My main problem with Obama and the congressional leadership is that they are trying as hard as they can to break our country’s economy using anti-capitalist Keynesian economics and restricting freedom, all in the name of their knowing better what is best for us.
How, for example, can you justify tripling the deficit to $1.4 trillion in one year, with projections for the same next year? Harry Reid has proposed adding another quarter trillion with the Medicare doctors’ fix to Medicare. The Washington Post thought it was ridiculous and it is a blatant attempt to exclude that figure from the ObamaCare tab, which would push the price-tag well over $1 trillion for that boondoggle as well.
Bill Clinton was nowhere near as radical and neither would Hillary have been. You can dislike my characterization of Obama and Co., but I don’t paint all Democrats with the same brush. Obama is a radical leftist and has has had, and continues to have, Communists and Communist-types, all around him. I think the country is in grave danger and, if I am right, let it not be said that some of us didn’t see it coming from miles away. If I am wrong, I will happily apologize later to those whose feathers were ruffled.
In response to another comment. See in context »Probably good idea Bill for you to set up a remote rural retreat well stocked with jerky, hardtack, canned beans, firearms, and ammo just in case you’re right.
In response to another comment. See in context »How do you know I am not already there?
In response to another comment. See in context »That would be too much to hope for!
In response to another comment. See in context »Boondoggle? You consider health care reform a boondoggle?
You may not like the plan as it is currently being constructed, but I think you give yourself away by treating the notion so coldly. I would guess that you have a very good health insurance policy and sleep well at night knowing that you’ll be find. I also suspect you don’t much care about what happens to those who do not.
You should not mask your belief system as ‘conservatism’ as, by so doing, you do a great disservice to conservatives- many of whom are deeply caring people who have solutions to problems that come from a different place than those on the left. Your approach seems to come from a very different place that is neither conservative nor liberal- it is a place that great conservatives like Jack Kemp would vehemently reject.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am responding to Rick Ungar. It didn’t give me the option to click directly on “reply to” on his message, but I hope this ends up in the right place.
Rick, when you mentioned the other side calling Obama Hitler, what inspired that comment? Because in this comments thread, I had not seen anyone call Obama Hitler.
I would like to see this thread get back on the original topic, which was Anita Dunn referring to Mao as one of her favorite philosophers. I am mainly concerned about how far we as a society, particularly our media, have slipped into meaningless subject matter that we aren’t hearing more outrage about a mass murderer being praised for his philosophies. I am not even considering the possibility of someone in the Obama administration perpetrating violence on that level. I am more concerned with how apathetic we, particularly the media, are about studying the history and spreading knowledge about how this happened and how to prevent it.
I am also opposed to communism. Again, we can’t just be apathetic and assume that the US will never go too far in that direction, just because we didn’t start that way. The solution to that is also education (doing the difficult research and going beyond the clips) which the media is falling short in despite, or perhaps because of, having 24 hours to fill.
I found this quote from Wikipedia interesting: “Mao Zedong Thought asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie.”
In response to another comment. See in context »