Chicago Tribune staff writer Rex Huppke has solicited the expertise of communist party leaders to defend Barack Obama from the fallout of the now famous answer he supplied to a man referred to as Joe the Plumber.
In an article with the misleading headline "Socialists: Obama No Socialist" Huppke applied some painstaking logic to reach his conclusion that Barack Obama can not be a socialist if avowed communists will not state that he is.
Local communists, rarely tapped as campaign pundits, say Sen. Barack Obama and his policies stand far afield from any form of socialism they know.
John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain's campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven't forgotten their Cold War rhetoric.
This is funny. Yesterday we heard that Dick Durbin was going to reign in Barack Obama's liberal tendencies. Today a leader of Communist Party USA is coming to the defense of Barack Obama. Besides, we all know that communists support the capitalist candidate.
Batchell and Huppke weren't finished however.
"Red baiting is really the last refuge of scoundrels," Bachtell said. "It has nothing to do with the issues that are confronting the American people right now. It's just a big diversion."
Of course that's just one man's opinion. (And everyone knows you can't trust a communist.)
Strange how any question that confronts Barack Obama's policies is met with a response that really never addresses the policies in question. Much better to call names than discuss the merits of what led people to believe that Barack Obama is proposing a socialist style redistribution of wealth.
Huppke then whips out the socialism dictionary.
So, how do you know if you're a socialist?
Generally, it involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries.
Nice try. Define the tool while ignoring the goal.
Huppke missed one of the main objectives of socialism that involves distribution of wealth for the benefit of all involved. Huppke's selective definition actually touches on the theory that socialism is an intermediate step between capitalism and communism. So if we are going to speak in generalities Huppke had better brace himself for the eventual collapse of his argument when those generalities become a counter-argument to his premise.
For instance, I would expect proponents of communism to support Barack Obama as they do in Huppke's article; especially if they see Obama's words on the campaign trail as putting the United States one step closer to their idea of a future America.
Finally Huppke had one another argument to make. He solicited the editor of a Chicago based communist newspaper to support his theory that spreading the wealth isn't such a bad idea anyway.
Right now, with the economy in the tank, the idea of a little wealth sharing doesn't sound so bad to people whose 401k plans are worth less than the contents of their coin jars.
"The idea of closing that wealth gap, I think, is a concern for many, many Americans," said Teresa Albano, editor of the Chicago-based People's Weekly World, a communist newspaper. "I don't think people are going to respond negatively to the idea of spreading around the wealth."
Which is not to say that, by electing Obama, the country will gamely head down the path of socialism.
Yeah right. If history has taught us anything it is those "little ideas", i.e. ideas with little thought, that have a tendency to become big problems somewhere down the line.
Terry Trippany is the publisher of Webloggin and holds the post as The Watcher at Watcher of Weasels.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Get it straight
October 21, 2008 - 12:03 ET by JWFLeftists, Liberals, hippies, socialists, communists. None very bright.
Obama is a marxist. We know it. Why can't the left get it straight.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Marxist religion
October 21, 2008 - 13:39 ET by mbuelIs alot like Islamic religion.
The Shia's and Sunni's fight each other over who is the true successor to the prophet in the same way that, NaZi's, Fascists and communists all fought each other. We are told that we shouldn't think that NaZi's shared the same ideology as the Communists because they fought with each other.
This claim is absolutely unbelievable.
What else would you expect from another religion founded by the dark one? Of course they are going to fight amongst one another on how to worship at the font of marxism.
And frankly,
Marxism SHOULD be shunned. It's a HORRIBLE philosophy that has lead to more death and destruction than any other philosophy in history.
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
Obama's "Global Poverty Act"
October 21, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Ten7sWhy hasn't Obama's "Global Poverty Act" become an issue (esp. in light of his recent comments about income redistribution)?
The GPA would legally bind us to spend ~$800,000,000,000 in countries around the world for "the reduction of global
poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement
of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)". If that's not socialist,...
Correct me if I am wrong...
October 21, 2008 - 12:12 ET by R D Helm...as I frequently am, but did not the CPUSA officially endorse Obama not too terribly long ago?
I thought I read that somewhere...
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
Yes they did
October 21, 2008 - 15:49 ET by usbeefYes they did, here is the link to their official statement:
Endorsed by Communist Party USA
Here is the rest of Obama's associations list:
"Push back the liberal hordes!!" - Mark Levin
But he doesn't KNOW them!
October 21, 2008 - 16:42 ET by mbuelhttp://www.ibdeditor...
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
USB, excellent work! This
October 21, 2008 - 18:11 ET by semolina_filcherUSB, excellent work! This is the company Barry Barack Dunham Soetoro Obama Odinga chooses to keep but will probably throw under the bus at his convenience...
usb... More ammo
October 21, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Clear thinkerusb...
More ammo here... Why Obama Scares The Crap Out Of Me
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Oh, this is good...
October 21, 2008 - 12:15 ET by retroconFirst, communism does not equal socialism... they are related, but not the same. And besides, Obama and Bush have started already:
"Generally, it involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries." Three out four ain't bad... energy - windfall profits tax; communications - fairness doctrine; gov reg [and ownership] of private industries - banks.
Second, the communist in the article is defending Obama against claims of socialism to help Obama. If they want to help Obama, then he must be the candidate nearest to their ideals.
They even go on to defend his position about "spreading around the wealth." An undeniably socialist philosophy.
Wow, if anyone reads that, they should definitly recognize two things: 1) Communists want Obama to be elected; and 2) Communists agree with Obama on spreading around the wealth.
Go ChiTrib!
Semantics
October 21, 2008 - 13:42 ET by mbuel"First, communism does not equal socialism... they are related, but not the same."
It's like saying Green Apples are not like Red Apples. They are based upon the same flawed philosophy, and the difference is merely in the name to make it seem "kinder" to the western audiences. We fought the cold war against the Communists NOT the Socialists.
Both are red diaper doper babies though.
Both hate the free market, and both want to spread our wealth around.
A new motto should be;
"Keep your hands off my wealth!"
Too funny
October 21, 2008 - 12:29 ET by oilcanLOL, now the MSM needs to rely on avowed communists to whitewash, errr, sanitze Obama's socialist remark.
This is hilarious.
October 21, 2008 - 13:08 ET by motherbeltThis is hilarious. Getting socialists to say that Obama is a lousy socialist.
What's next?
"I knew socialists, I've worked with socialists; you, Sen. Obama, are no socialist."
And the old liberal standby: redefine the terms.
"Spreading the wealth around" isn't socialism.
It's just "closing the wealth gap."
What's next?
October 21, 2008 - 13:08 ET by SickofLibsThe International Society of Egomaniacs also just pulled their endorsement.
Well, that's it!
October 21, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Copperhead Ridge"John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain's
campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and
a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven't forgotten
their Cold War rhetoric."
No way I vote for McCain now. If he's going to offend socialists. You better stop it, Johnny Mc. You might hurt the feelings of the nation's socialists (aka Democrats).
rhetoric
October 21, 2008 - 13:54 ET by mbuelFrankly the rhetoric isn't strong enough. There are still young people that morally equivocate socialism and capitalism.
But it's IN the text book on the free market.
http://www.humanitie...
From what I can tell this is a course on the Free Market! Absolutely insane... With the amount of personal and private destruction caused by various marxist philosophies it is absolutely irresponsible to keep statements like this in the literature.
Earl Browder may want to ban this book
October 21, 2008 - 13:46 ET by Carl KolchakI think most young people nowadays are taught that the US and their allies were the bad guys during the Cold War, because their teachers say so.
Here is a book you may want to checkout, before Earl Browder and Company decide to ban it. I've also included a link with some excerpts.
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68074
"The Chancellor-the late chancellor-was only part correct. He was obsolete. But so was the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under 'M' for Mankind in the Twilight Zone" Rod Serling
The Chancellor - A blow
October 21, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Dan The Man 2The Chancellor - A blow struck for librarians around the world. But the librarian of today would not have the courage to stand up to the state like Burgess Merideth did.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ok so its like the reporter
October 21, 2008 - 13:46 ET by dark_dsOk so its like the reporter went to do a story about a sex offender and they went to NAMBLA for answers ......"well he isnt pediphile ...he is a pervert but not a pediphile"
NAMBLA
October 21, 2008 - 18:08 ET by panzerakcWould more likely say, "Well, he's a pedophile, but he's not a pervert . . . ."
Mr. Bachtell, have no fear,
October 21, 2008 - 18:15 ET by Clear thinkerMr. Bachtell, have no fear, but you are being watched. Hehehehe!
Maybe you should read this Mr. Commie lover... Ex-spook Writes About Obama
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
"Right now, with the economy
October 21, 2008 - 18:27 ET by IndigoChill"Right now, with the economy in the tank, the idea of a little wealth sharing doesn't sound so bad to people whose 401k plans are worth less than the contents of their coin jars."
What does that say to those who are getting their wealth "redistributed"? If we take their money to give it to the little guy, the little guy may be happy, but then the rich guy's short on his plans (which may include plans to start a new business, which would contribute to the economy).
Indigo
October 22, 2008 - 09:23 ET by NorthCoasterThe sad thing is that I hear a number of people that think their situation will be better. They haven't run the numbers or looked at the history of these folks who are fellow travelers with Barak. I work in healthcare and see first hand the effects of government "participation " in the system.