Bill DeBlasio, almost certain to be NYC's next mayor, went to Nicaragua several times during the 1980s and actively worked to help the Sandinistas consolidate their takeover of the post-Somoza government.
Honeymooned in Cuba.
Then came back and followed a long-march-through-the-institutions path similar to that of the Most Equal Comrade.
Perhaps Congress is ready for another Joe McCarthy. Oh, they may have one in Ted Cruz.
ReplyDeleteNot getting the analogy. How is Ted like Joe McCarthy?
ReplyDeleteIf your memory serves you well, folks were making that comparison as early as February of this year when he had an opening to utilize his well-honed prosecutorial tactics during the Hagel inquisition.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the Senate confirmation hearings for Chuck Hagel last week, my attention was grabbed when I heard Senator Cruz note that he had witnessed something “truly extraordinary, which is the government of Iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of a defense secretary. I would suggest to you that to my knowledge, that is unprecedented to see a foreign nation like Iran publicly celebrating a nomination.”
While I found this bit of information to be shocking (I had not heard this reported from any other news source) and more than a little difficult to believe, I had to agree with Senator Cruz that such a statement of support would not only be unprecedented but more than a little disturbing —if the Iranian government had, indeed, offered up such warm words of praise in support of Senator Hagel’s nomination.
Yet, the Iranians never issued any such statement or, for that matter, even came close.
It turns out that during a press conference, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry was asked by a reporter what he thought about Chuck Hagel’s views on Israel. In response, the spokesperson said, “We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign policy and that Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations.”
Clearly, there was no rational basis for Senator Cruz to conclude that such a remark was an expression of public praise for the nomination of Chuck Hagel. So why would Cruz suggest such a thing?
The only possible explanation for Cruz’s remarks would have to be that he either misheard or misunderstood the statement of the Iranian spokesperson or, in homage to Joe McCarthy, he purposely twisted the remark to cast an undeserved dark shadow on Senator Hagel.
To date, Senator Cruz has never come forward to say that, upon further review, he may have been mistaken about his interpretation of the Iranian spokesperson’s remarks. Thus, the only remaining option is that is was a purposeful smear.
The alarm bells set off by Cruz’s statement only grew louder when Chris Matthews and Aliyah Frumin of MSNBC , reminded us of the time Joe McCarthy attempted to similarly create a moment of “guilt by association and commendation” when The Communist Daily Worker newspaper favorably reviewed the episode of Edward R. Murrow’s TV show where the great newsman performed his famous take-down of McCarthy. In an effort to paint Murrow as a Communist sympathizer as the means of discrediting his efforts, McCarthy noted that the Daily Worker “lists Mr. Murrow’s program as one of tonight’s best bets on TV.”
Sadly, Senator Cruz had only just begun his smear campaign against Chuck Hagel.
Read more at http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/18/ted-cruz-the-reincarnation-of-joe-mccarthy/
Cruz gave a stem-winder of a speech at a Fourth of July weekend political rally in Austin, Texas, in which he accused the Harvard Law School of harboring a dozen Communists on its faculty when he studied there. Cruz attended Harvard Law School from 1992 until 1995. His spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request to discuss the speech.
ReplyDeleteCruz made the accusation while speaking to a rapt ballroom audience during a luncheon at a conference called “Defending the American Dream,” sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a non-profit political organization founded and funded in part by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. Cruz greeted the audience jovially, but soon launched an impassioned attack on President Obama, whom he described as “the most radical” President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.” (I was covering the conference and kept the notes.)
He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”
“We are puzzled by the Senator’s assertions, as we are unaware of any basis for them,” Robb London, a spokesman for Harvard Law School, told me. London noted that Cruz had contributed “warm reminiscences“ of the school by video for a reunion of Latino alumni. “We applaud the fact that he has pursued public service, as so many of our graduates have done. We are also proud of our longstanding tradition of freedom of speech and the robust range of views and debates on our campus.”
Read more at http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/ted-cruz-sees-red-not-crimson-at-harvard.html
It's spreading already!
ReplyDelete“Are you Robert Reich? You’re a Commie dirtbag!”
A frightening airport encounter speaks volumes about the nation's level of political discourse
By Robert Reich
Read more at http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/are_you_robert_reich_youre_a_commie_dirtbag_partner/
Here is what lil Bobby the Commie Reich posted today on his facebook page. If he is commie then FDR was too. Oh, that's right, your ilk called the victorious leader of the free world after WWII a damn commie and worse back in his day. He still consistently ranks in the Top 5 or every poll ranking past prexies.
ReplyDeleteIt's not perfect. I would have preferred a single-payer system, or at least one in which people had an option to buy into Medicare. And I'm sure there will be some glitches as the federal government rolls out new insurance markets in 36 states starting next week. Anything this large and ambitious will need fine-tuning. That was the case with Social Security after it was introduced in 1935, and Medicare in 1965.
But the Affordable Care Act -- now the law of the land -- is a step in the right direction. Doing nothing wasn't an option: Ours is the most expensive and complex healthcare system in the world that delivers poorer results and leaves a larger portion of the population without care than that of any other advanced nation. (One benefit already apparent even before the Affordable Care Act is implemented: healthcare cost increases are beginning to slow in anticipation of it. That means savings for almost every American already insured.)
We'll learn a lot more in coming months and years. And as with Social Security and Medicare, what needs fixing can be fixed. If it turns out we don't like it at all, we can repeal it -- the same way we occasionally repeal other laws, through an orderly process of legislating.
But some Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act before we even try it, threatening to shut down the government and not pay the nation's debts if the rest of us don't go along. Why don't even want to try -- and why are they threatening to hold the whole government hostage if they don't get their way? They must fear that once fully implemented, the Act will prove immensely popular, as did Social Security and Medicare. Republicans had bitterly opposed both of these acts of Congress as well. Fortunately for the rest of us, they didn't try to gut them before they were implemented.
Even more from lil Bobby G the Commie, 2nd post of the day for you to spill what's left of your lunch, damn Commies hate it when you call them one:
ReplyDeleteRobert Reich
Several of you have asked me why I care what Bill O'Reilly thinks or says about me. Frankly, I don't give a damn. But I do care that our national conversation is increasingly shrill -- with name-calling substituting for civil debate and ad hominem attack for reason. O'Reilly and Fox News are partly responsible. Millions of Americans tune into his and his colleagues' rants every day. That's why I've challenged him to a debate. He obviously disagrees with me -- why else would he call me a "Communist" and "secret admirer of Karl Marx," and go after me on his show this week for even bringing this up? The fact he's unwilling to debate speaks volumes -- not just about him and Fox News but also about the poison he and others are infecting America with, making it almost impossible for people of different political views to engage in reasoned and civil discussion.
The scourge of widening inequality is causing large numbers of Americans, working harder than ever but getting nowhere, to feel frustrated and angry. O'Reilly and his ilk are using that anger to turn us against one another at the very time we most need come together to solve our problems. This is contemptible.