GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers Glen Johnson And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers 7 mins ago

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Coakley for the seat that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy held for nearly half a century signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

More immediately, Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president’s health care legislation and the rest of Obama’s agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

Democratic fingerpointing began more than a week ago as polls started showing a tight race, with the White House accusing Coakley of a poor campaign and the Coakley camp laying at some of the blame on the administration. Obama flew to Boston for last-ditch personal campaigning on Sunday.

With 87 percent of precincts counted, Brown led Coakley, 52 percent to 47 percent.

The election transformed reliably Democratic Massachusetts into a battleground state. One day shy of the first anniversary of Obama’s swearing-in, it played out amid a backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, industry bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.

For weeks considered a long shot, Brown seized on such discontent to overtake Coakley in the final stretch of the campaign. Surveys showed his candidacy energized Republicans, including backers of the grass-roots “tea party” movement, while attracting disappointed Democrats and independents uneasy with where they felt the nation was heading.

Turnout was relatively heavy for a special election despite a mix of snow and rain showers across the state virtually all day.

Though he wasn’t on the ballot, the president was on many voters’ minds.

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. … I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

He said his frustrations, including what he considered the too-quick pace of health care legislation, led him to vote for Brown.

But Robert Hickman, 55, of New Bedford, said he backed Coakley “to stay on the same page with the president.”

Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.

Coakley’s supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration.

While votes were still being cast, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president “was both surprised and frustrated … not pleased” at how competitive the race had become in the final weeks.

Wall Street watched the election closely. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 116 points, and analysts attributed the increase to hopes the election would make it harder for Obama to make his changes to health care. That eased investor concerns that profits at companies such as insurers and drug makers would suffer.

Across Massachusetts, voters who had been bombarded with phone calls and dizzied with nonstop campaign commercials for Coakley and Brown gave a fitting turnout despite intermittent snow and rain statewide.

Secretary of State William Galvin, who discounted sporadic reports of voter irregularities throughout the day, predicted turnout ranging from 1.6 million to 2.2 million, 40 percent to 55 percent of registered voters. The Dec. 8 primary had a scant turnout of about 20 percent.

Voters considered national issues including health care and the federal budget deficits.

“We don’t want health care just for the rich and the middle class. We need it for everyone,” said Democrat Neicei Degen, 82, who voted for Coakley in hopes of saving Obama’s plan that would extend coverage to millions of uninsured.

Fears about spending drove Karla Bunch, 49, to vote for Brown. “It’s time for the country, for the taxpayers, to take back their money,” she said.

For others, feelings about the candidates themselves shaped their votes.

Recalling that Brown once posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine, Kaitlin Addams, 50, said she reluctantly voted for Coakley “to make sure the pinup boy doesn’t get into office. I don’t like his stand on issues. He’s an extreme conservative.”

Conversely, Elizabeth Reddin, 65, voted for Brown because she said she was turned off by the Democrat’s negative advertisements, saying: “The Coakley stuff was disgusting.”

As polls opened, Brown drove up to his polling place in Wrentham in the green pickup truck that came to symbolize his upstart, workmanlike campaign that in the past week pulled him into a surprise dead heat in polls.

“It would make everybody the 41st senator, and it would bring fairness and discussion back to the equation,” the state senator said of a potential victory. He spent the rest of the day out of public view, crafting evening rally remarks that had the potential to be an early State of the Union speech for the national Republican Party.

Coakley, stunned to see a double-digit lead evaporate in recent weeks, counted on labor unions and reawakened Democrats to turn out on her behalf and preserve a seat Kennedy and his brother, President John F. Kennedy, held for over 50 years. The senator died in August of brain cancer.

“We’re paying attention to the ground game,” Coakley, the state’s attorney general, said casting her vote in suburban Medford. “Every game has its own dynamics.”

___

Liz Sidoti reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Beth Fouhy, Bob Salsberg, Steve LeBlanc, Karen Testa, Kevin Vineys and Stephanie Reitz also contributed to this report.

Tight Massachusetts race alarms California Dems

Tight Massachusetts race alarms California Dems

Carla Marinucci,Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Political Writers

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, right, Dem... Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, spea... Sen. Barbara Boxer's rivals could be heartened by a Coakl... At an MLK breakfast in San Francisco, politicians express...

The possible loss of a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts has Democrats on edge 3,000 miles away in California, where party activists fear a GOP upset today could trigger a conservative wave and swamp health care reform and the 2010 midterm elections.

“Regardless of the outcome … this should be a gigantic wake-up call to the Democratic Party – that we’re not connecting with the needs, the aspirations and the desires of real people right now,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

With Republican Scott Brown poised to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts race to succeed the late Edward Kennedy, Democrats at the annual Martin Luther King community breakfast in San Francisco were buzzing about the impacts of such an upset: an end to the party’s 60-vote supermajority and a possible mortal blow to the health care legislation championed by President Obama.

Ripple effects

But Democrats also considered the ripple effects on coming elections in the nation’s most populous state.

“We better get our act together – and quickly,” Newsom said. Voters “are so angry. They don’t feel that we’re paying attention to their needs, in terms of their jobs, and what’s going on at the grassroots, in their neighborhoods.”

With just 10 months until the 2010 midterm election, the mayor’s remarks underscore how the Brown-Coakley race has set off alarms in Democratic-leaning California, which is holding two high-profile elections this cycle.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a three-term Democrat, faces a re-election challenge – with three Republicans vying to defeat her: former Rep. Tom Campbell, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine.

Boxer polled no more than 46 percent of the vote against any of the three in a Rasmussen Poll released Friday.

And with GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger termed out, former two-term Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown will face one of two wealthy GOP challengers: former eBay CEO Meg Whitman or state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

Worse than a canary

For Boxer, a favorite Republican target, a GOP win in Massachusetts would be a particularly dark sign representing “not just the canary in the coal mine,” said Wade Randlett, a leading Silicon Valley fundraiser for Obama. “It’s the flock of dead ravens landing on the lawn.”

But Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking to reporters Monday, expressed confidence in Boxer – and in Democrats’ prospects in California. She insisted that – whatever the outcome – the results today will in no way represent a repudiation of the Obama administration, especially on the matter of health care reform.

“Certainly the dynamics will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts,” she said. “But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill.”

Still, “if Brown wins, then Tea Party supporters will smell blood in California,” said Joe Wierzbicki, coordinator of the Tea Party Express, a conservative organization that counts roughly a quarter of its 353,000 supporters in California.

“This would be a sign that the momentum in general is in the direction of the Tea Party movement,” he said.

Key differences

There are, however, key differences in party demographics in the two states. While Massachusetts Democrats hold a 3-to-1 registration lead over Republicans, more than half of that state’s voters are registered independent.

In California, 45 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 31 percent Republicans, and 20 percent decline to state.

Boxer, unlike Coakley, has run three Senate races – and her office said Monday that she had raised more money than ever in the fundraising period that ended in December. (The figures are to be released today.)

“What happens in Massachusetts in January doesn’t predict what is going to happen in California in November,” said Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski. “We’re taking nothing for granted.”

But “if Brown manages to win, I certainly think that will encourage the supporters” of DeVore, the more conservative GOP Senate candidate, Kapolczynski said. “If the national Tea Party movement engaged … that could dramatically change the Republican primary.”

Going forward, Pelosi said Democrats will continue to pound “Main Street” issues, while Republicans will continue to represent the insurance companies, the wealthy and Wall Street.

American voters will be reminded “the Republicans in Congress … weren’t for Social Security, they weren’t for Medicare,” she said.

But Newsom said the Republican resurgence in Massachusetts suggests “there’s real intensity and fervor out there, as represented by the Tea Party” activists expressing anger at government spending and at job losses.

“This is real,” he said. “At our own peril, we dismiss these tea parties as … some sort of isolated extremism. … It’s not.”

State of Union

The White House announced that President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Jan. 27 at 6 p.m. PST.

The speech to the joint session of Congress is customarily carried by all the major broadcast and cable news networks and will be streamed on the White House Web site: www.whitehouse.gov.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com and Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/19/MNU81BJRM1.DTL

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Obama Death Plan: Americans Forced to pay for Obama Bribes

Obama Death Plan: Americans Forced to pay for Obama Bribes

January 19th, 2010

By Sher Zieve, Canada Free Press

 Obama has begun to rule with bribes

With no one in Congress—thus far—even attempting to stop the atrocities committed by Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, he and his patently corrupt Democrat Party leaders have managed to bribe any and all voting members and substantive monetary and goon-squad contributors to support the passage of his ObamaCare Death Plan.

Initially, Madame Pelosi DeFarge twisted arms and came close to breaking legs in order to pass the House of Representative’s version of this beastly bill (HR 3200).Note: We-the-People still have no idea how many family members—including small and helpless children—Pelosi threatened to rub out if the Congressional boys and girls didn’t play ball and follow her orders.

On the other hand, Harry “this war is lost” Reid made the decision—apparently early on—to give taxpayer money to his more calcitrant Democrat senators in order to bribe them for their votes. It took him $300 Millions to buy Louisiana Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote and a Medicaid exemption into perpetuity—for Nebraska—to buy Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) vote. In order to buy off the unions, Obama—himself—had to meet with union leadership and agree that union leaders and their members will be able to retain their so-called “Cadillac Health Insurance” policies and not pay the proposed 40% tax on them that the rest of us will have to pay. In order to do this, Obama et al will—in no uncertain terms—cut Medicare in draconian ways and possibly more than the $500 Billions they already plan to gut/steal from it to pay for the establishment of their totalitarian government agencies.

Read More:

Reversing Obama’s Worst Decision Yet?

Reversing Obama’s Worst Decision Yet?

January 19th, 2010

By JENNIFER RUBIN, Commentary Magazine

 Obama and Holder are retreating on their idea to try KSM in civilian court

Newsweek reports: “Top administration officials are getting nervous that they may not be able to proceed with one of their most controversial national-security moves: trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 conspirators in federal court in New York City. Last November Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. portrayed the trial as a way to showcase the American justice system to the world — and to accelerate President Obama’s stalled plans to shut down the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. But because of shifting political winds in Congress, the trial is now “potentially in jeopardy,” a senior official, who did not want to be named talking about a sensitive situation, tells Newsweek. The chief concern: that Republicans will renew attempts to strip funding for the trial and, in the aftermath of the bombing attempt aboard Northwest Flight 253, pick up enough support from moderate Democrats to prevail.”

It seems that Sen. Lindsay Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf will try to force votes in Congress to cut off funding for the trial. And one additional issue: the more than $200 million price tag for each year of the trial. The kicker: “If Holder’s plans are thwarted, though, one top administration official, who also didn’t want to be named talking about delicate issues, notes there is a Plan B — reviving the case against the alleged 9/11 conspirators before a military tribunal, just as the Bush administration tried to do.”

This would be a stunning turnaround, an admission of Holder’s irresponsibility and of the Justice Department’s loony leftism. But this, of course, was part and parcel of Obama’s personal vision and his “not-Bush” approach to the war against Islamic fascists. Obama spent his campaign and the first year of his presidency eschewing the Bush anti-terror policies — employing enhanced interrogation techniques, maintaining Guantanamo, using military tribunals to prosecute terrorists — and pronouncing that they represented a betrayal of “our values.” He told us we’d rack up credit with … with whom was never quite clear, but we’d rack up credit.

Read More:

Obama’s Reign of Error

Obama’s Reign of Error

January 19th, 2010

By Michael Goodwin, FOXNews

 Uh-oh! here comes more bad policies from Obama

President Obama had some low points in his first year, but it looks like we ain’t seen nothing yet. Year two of his reign of error is shaping up as more of the same, only worse.

Much worse.

In just one day last week, Obama hatched two incredibly awful ideas. Either alone would be bad news for the country.

Together they could create more damage to a nation already staggered by 10 percent unemployment, huge deficits and political polarization.

What iceberg? Full speed ahead!

The Thursday decisions to punish banks for making money and to exempt union workers from an onerous health-care tax appear to have little in common, but they actually share a vital link. Both are the spawn of rank politics, with Obama using government power to reward friends and punish enemies.

First came the bank tax and, like so many other bad initiatives, his announcement was chock full of misleading arguments. It’s an ominous sign when truth is the enemy.

Read More:

More White House involvement in New Black Panther- DIJ scandal than first thought?

More White House involvement in New Black Panther- DIJ scandal than first thought?

Ed Lasky

On election day in 2008, the New Black Panther Party had a group of people intimidating voters in Philadelphia. The case was a slam dunk: there is a video of the Party members outside the polling place; dressed in military-style uniforms while one is waving a truncheon.  . Racial epithets were hurled at prospective voters, including the elderly.

The Department of Justice filed suit, the New Black Panther Party did not deny the charges, and department lawyers were preparing a default judgment and injunction. Instead, lawyers at the Civil Rights Division were ordered to drop the lawsuit against the party and all but one defendant (who got away with an injunction that would not prevent him from repeating the same violation in the future). This was among the first indications that Eric Holder would use the Department of Justice in a biased way (here are some other s ).

The DOJ has continued this pattern of conduct in other racially influenced ways. Meanwhile the DOJ has stonewalled numerous subpoenas from Congress and the US Civil RightsNow, Hans Spakovsky has revealed that the involvement of the White House in the travesty of justice involving the Black Panthers may be far more extensive than once thought.. By examining the schedule of visitor logs to the White House and significant dates in the saga of the Black Panther case, he builds a case – at least circumstantially – that political appointees, as well as a White House deputy counsel with close ties to Barack Obama, were closely involved in allowing the Black Panther party members to basically get off scot-free.

No wonder Holder and the White House wants to bury the controversy – even if it means sacrificing the career of a long-term DOJ attorney who was pursuing the case.

In reviewing the data, keep in mind that internal DOJ memos and news reports establish that the career lawyers in the Voting Section working on the case were overruled by Obama political appointees. But who exactly was involved? The Washington Times reported that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the No. 3 official at Justice, “was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint.” The DOJ has not denied this, but it also won’t say if Perrelli was the highest official involved.

Loretta King, the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, was also involved in ordering the career Voting Section lawyers to dismiss the suit and was in communication with Perrelli. So what else can we piece together?

The newly released White House records show a series of meetings between Perrelli and the then White House deputy counsel, Cassandra Butts, some also involving Spencer Overton, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. All of these Obama political appointees were actively involved with voting issues in their previous jobs.

Perrelli was extensively involved in some of the Democratic Party’s biggest redistricting fights as a private attorney. Butts used to work at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and has described herself as being “as close to Barack as anyone in law school.” When Butts was at the Center for American Progress, she complained on CAP’s blog about John Ashcroft allowing conservative views to influence decisions in the Civil Rights Division and specifically the Voting Section.

Spencer Overton is a George Washington University Law School professor who considers himself an “expert” on the Voting Rights Act and is one of the most partisan individuals in the so-called “vote reform” community. He has relentlessly attacked Republicans as “vote suppressors” and “intimidators” in demagogic publications like Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression.

Spakovsky prepared a time line worth perusing that shows a pattern of visits to the White House by DOJ lawyers , followed closely by steps that led to the case being dropped, subpoenas denied, the lead lawyer pursuing the matter “transferred”, and other highly suspicious acts that amount to roadblocks being put in place to derail those trying to get to the bottom of this scandal. The White House is working with the Department of Justice to place a thumb – no a hand – on the scales of justice to favor one group, and one political party, over another in America. This is Nixonian, raised to a higher power.

So much for transparency. Fortunately, Hans Spakovsky and others (Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, Fox News, the Washington Times) are trying to make issues more transparent for us, because we know the administration is not, and we know mainstream media is not either.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/more_white_house_involvement_i.html at January 19, 2010 – 07:58:22 AM CST

Liberalism Is Dead

Liberalism Is Dead

By James Lewis

The name “liberalism” has now drifted so far from its moorings that it has turned into a lie. Anybody who uses “liberal” these days is trying to put one over on you. It’s like Florida swampland peddlers talking about their “beautiful lakeshore.” You can stop listening at that point, because nothing you’re going to hear is true. Liberalism used to mean something. Today it’s pure Florida swampland, complete with snapping alligators.

Consider: Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate for US Senate for “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” in Massachusetts, as Middlesex County DA kept in prison a victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice during the witchhunts of the 1990s against supposed Satanic child abusers, based on pressured testimony by very young (and therefore unreliable) children. The case against the Admiraults was admirably exposed by the Wall Street Journal, who made it overwhelmingly clear that they were the innocent victims of a radical feminist delusional assault. But thanks to Martha Coakley’s efforts, Gerald Amirault was left to rot in jail long after it was clear he was innocent.  

Coakley is not a liberal in any honest sense of that world. She is a radical prosecutorial Leftist. That is how she made her bones in the Mass Democrat Machine. 

The l-word still has a positive flavor from the old days, when it meant tolerance, open-mindedness, and the active defense of freedom. That’s how JFK used it. Barack Obama is not a liberal; he is a Third World Socialist of the really angry kind. From childhood on Obama has been surrounded by enraged Leftists, including those crucial four years of living in Indonesia, right after the whole Communist Party was wiped out by the Indonesian military under General Sukarno. That’s Obama’s real experience of the world outside of Hawaii. Ever since then Obama has chosen to be surrounded by anti-Western, anti-liberal Leftists. Jeremiah Wright is perfectly typical of Obama’s crowd. Obama is mentally the most fixated president we’ve had for a century, because he has never bothered to look outside of his Hard Leftist circle. He doesn’t know any normal people. Like the New York Times Editorial Board or the Faculty of Harvard.

A big chunk of the Left has always despised liberalism anyway. Marx and Lenin made a big thing out of sneering at soppy liberals. Those are the kinds of folks who raised and befriended Barry Soetoro. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were never liberals. They’re maybe New Left Mao Zedong worshippers, or some such thing.

Obama showed the world how far he is from JFK’s liberalism when he bowed down ostentatiously to two monarchs in a row — the Saudi King, whose tribal kingdom confines women to the home, protects African slavery, and executes homosexuals; and the Emperor of Japan, in whose father’s name Japanese soldiers massacred racially “inferior” Asians throughout the “Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Naturally the Chinese, who still hate the Japanese for what they did, simply went ballistic when Obama bowed to the Japanese Emperor.  A month later China torpedoed the Copenhagen summit with exquisite timing, right after Obama invested his personal prestige in rescuing the Great Green Fraud of Eurosocialism. You can bet that the Chinese did that deliberately. It was payback, and it also protected their own economic development and their investment in US Treasuries.

On the other side of the world, Obama likes to show public contempt for the Brits, who are the source of American ideals of liberty. It was the Royal Navy that halted the African slave trade, if only belatedly, and it’s Muslim Africans who still own black slaves today, two hundred years after the Brits swept slavery from the oceans. Just as it was Abe Lincoln, an American Republican, who ended slavery in America.

But mere facts don’t mean diddly to the Left. Facts and scholarship used to be important for liberals — Lionel Trilling, Walter Lippmann, Patrick Moynihan were academic liberals. Traditional liberals would be scandalized by the PC reign of intimidation in the academic world today, just as they would be shocked by the massive scientific corruption of the Global Climate Fraud. Not anymore. If the Left still uses the l-word it’s pure Florida Everglades they’re selling.

Take Cass Sunstein (please!) Mr. Sunstein is a star of Harvard Law School, and may well be nominated to the Supremes. But Mr. Sunstein wants to stamp out free speech, at least for “conspiracy theorists.” Last year Mr. S wrote a 30 page legal article with Adrian Vermeule called “Conspiracy Theories,” 

“What can government do about conspiracy theories?… We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”
Yes, indeed, we could imagine such a thing, but the history of American Constitutionalism is dead set against such ventures in abusive government censorship. What does Mr. Sunstein think the First and Fourth Amendments are about? If Mr. Sunstein gets to the Supreme Court he will try to reverse three centuries of legal scholarship, even before the US Constitution. Now think for a second: Obama gets elected in 2008, and Sunstein is now prominently mentioned as a Supreme Court nominee. Is this the time to publish an article on stamping out free speech, unless you know Obama is in sympathy with that way of thinking?

Since Marxism-Leninism is nothing but a gigantic conspiracy theory (capitalism being an international conspiracy against the workers of the world) it’s obvious that Mr Sunstain is not thinking about his good buds on the Left. No, Cass Sunstein is proposing a conspiracy to sic the FBI on those who would accuse him of proposing a conspiracy against their Constitutional rights. Their prosecutable sin? They are “conspiracy theorists.” This legalistic gobbledegook would surely earn the applause of such as Stalin and Goebbels, but real liberals would cringe. Mr. Sunstein is a Leftist but far from a liberal.

Even Massachusetts may be catching on that so-called liberals don’t deserve that name any more. Barney Frank is not a liberal, but a demagogue and corruptocrat with truly awesome, dictatorial arrogance. That is because he has a safe seat in Boston. Chris Dodd is not a liberal, but said to be one of the most corrupt members of the US Senate. Harry Reid is a demagogue and a Machiavellian. Nancy Pelosi is a Mafia moll. We should therefore stop associating the word “liberal” with such creatures. Liberalism is dead; anyone using that word is lying or living in the long-ago past.

What we see now from the Democrats may be Applied Marxism, Hard Leftism, Gangster Leftism or maybe the Machine Politics of the Left. Europe has killed liberalism in exactly the same way, since the Evil Year of 1968. Even Joschka Fischer, the founder of the Green Party of Germany, has confessed that yes, he sometimes gave in to “the totalitarian temptation.” I don’t think Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, or even JFK ever had a “totalitarian temptation” in their lives. It takes a German Green Marxist to say such things, with all its bloody echoes in 20th century Europe. Bizarre.

There’s always been a huge amount of totalitarianism on the Left, all the way from Karl Marx onward. On the real Left the lust for power always wins out over sucker slogans like democracy and peace, because the real Left isn’t against the Ruling Class; it just wants to be the new Ruling Class. Obama is the perfect example. When Lenin took over in Moscow it was the Russian liberals who got a single bullet in the head.

Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” points out a lot of similarities between the modern Left and fascism — they are only slightly different brands of Control Freak Statism, alternative brands like Coke and Pepsi. I think he is right on the facts but not on the labels. “Liberal fascism” sounds like a contradiction because the Left is no longer liberal. That’s all there’s to it.

The name “liberalism” should be put in a museum of out-of-date political labels, like the Whigs and the Wobblies. If there is ever a real democratic rebellion in the Democrat Party maybe real liberalism will come back. But until such time, we can only wish that the l-word will Rest in Peace. The Left has killed it.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/liberalism_is_dead.html at January 19, 2010 – 07:56:49 AM CST