It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. Political stratagems that appear moderate and compromised to radical factions of the left may present an even greater threat from the perspective of the other side. In 1917, Lenin's political slogan wasn't "Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!" It was "Bread, Land and Peace."
Yet Hillary Clinton as America's "first lady of the left," is also not an obvious subject to many conservatives. And since conservative politics begins with the defense of America's constitutional order, this is a far more significant matter. Underestimating the foe on any battlefield can be a fatal fault; in politics likewise............................................"
They sure are. Both the Stalinists and regular Marxists are well represented, just no Americans.
I strongly support democrat infighting, but that article was a little confusing.
I gotta say Bill Clinton and the DLC had a good thing going on there for a while. And then they elected all those more conservative dems to congress (pro-life, etc.)
And then Barack Obama came along and lo and behold they are all under the bus.
Can Hillary Clinton put that humpty dumpty back together? I doubt it.
Hillary Clinton is Americas Elena Ceausceau
typical progressive logic
if you oppose raising social security benefits, then that means you are “slashing” them
Oh, wait, Boehner is so sorry of letting Obamacare be a democrat issue that cannot be blamed on the GOP or Bush, that now with Amnesty he is going to correct the record and make Hillary happy.
The mainstream press wants to focus only on the far right, but now the Democrats are heavily exposed and the mainstream press is having a hard time covering for them with the mid-terms coming up.
He's right, and oh so wrong at the same time. One of the truly great things about the America that used to be was economic mobility. It's well documented that successive generations had a high probability of moving up or down the economic ladder. The English had a rigid set of economic and social classes; we had "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."
What Obama and his clique miss is that the more oppressive the economic drag you put on workers, the more difficult you make economic mobility, at least upward economic mobility. The economic friction on savings accumulation (ZIRP to support government waste, taxes, regulation) grows greater every year. Meanwhile, it's easier and easier to move down into the government safety net of economic justice. I mean, with all of the disincentives for industrious behavior, "Why bother?"
Doesn’t matter how much infighting the dems enjoy, in the end they will all come together, obama’s NSA will ensure that.
Did you see AD Hill’s column today in The HIll? A must read