You know the political season is is in its home stretch when
folks are either this desperate to tar their enemies with anything they think
might stick—or they figure that they have no credibility left to lose—when you
read something like this from Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial
Page columnist:
Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word
for black
The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and
his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen.
Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.
J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972,
used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives
fighting for equality.
Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped
found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights
organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who
in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better
labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded
and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a
leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.
McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to
use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed
unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.
Shame on McCain and Palin.
At the risk of stating the oh-so-obvious, Barack Obama has
been black a lot longer than he has been identified as a socialist. In fact, as
recently as 10 days ago, he was a democrat, an extreme liberal, inexperienced,
naive, rabidly pro-abortion, but not a socialist. He has himself to thank for
that label. What makes people say he is a socialist--the reason he comes across as so dangerous to small business and the economy in general--are the things that come
out of his mouth, the positions he espouses, his proposed tax and spend plan, and
the questionable company he keeps. Of course, what brought it to a head was the
response he gave to the much maligned and abused Joe the Plumber, who sought to
challenge That One (or, The One, if you prefer), over the problems his tax plan
would pose to Joe's plans for future business ownership. I am sure you remember
the response. Obama told him that he (Obama) was going to tax Joe to “spread
the wealth around.”
Regardless of what J. Edgar Hoover said, white or black,
that is an admission of socialist thought. It will hurt US businesses,
especially small businesses, it will ruin our chances to regain prosperity and
it will limit the opportunities of average Americans to realize the American
Dream. The Chinese have realized the drawbacks of socialism, the Russians and
their satellites have as well. Now, if we could only convince Obama, Pelosi,
Ried and their media protectors and apologists like Diuguid, MSNBC and The New
York Times, we might get somewhere.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to our free newsletter to receive future articles and information delivered directly to your email inbox.
Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM
SmBizOwner says:
I am a small business owner (10 employees, 50/50 PT/FT, gross <$250K/yr), who is registered non-partisan, and I have looked at both major party's platforms and activity. By far and away, Obama/Biden will be better for my business, me and my employees - IFF they follow through AND Congress gets its poop together. In any case, I'm convinced that Obama/Biden provides the best risk/reward ratio.
As for "spreading the wealth", haven't we been doing that since at least the creation of the IRS? Calling Obama a socialist, under these circumstances, inevitably leads to calling our system a socialist one. Both sides are adept at name-calling, and it pisses me off.
And on that note, I'm all for socialized medicine. I cannot afford health insurance for my business, and my spouse essentially cannot get it individually (pre-existing conditions). There are tremendous benefits to proper health care for everyone, and there are many systems we can look at to avoid potential problems. If it doesn't work, we can always (re-)privatize it later.