Socialism is the goal of all progressive liberals, and socialism is at the heart of Marxism/Commmunism.
That statement sounds pro-liberal to me, as you are trying to cut off the connection that exists between progressives and the end result they work towards. Why would you want to obfuscate a connection that actually exists?
The term "progressive" is one of those wink and nod keywords they use to pat each other on the knee, under the table, as their hearts glow, and their faces shine with big smiles at the utopian dream of total government control (their control) over everything.
And of course the American Communists have always been an intractable element of the organized labor movement.
Every liberal "progressive" knows that the Communist Party of the USA is endorsing Obama, and has backed the Democrat Party ever since the days of Lyndon Johnson (?) and they have no problem with it. That should prove the point.
There is something very unsettling to the conservative heart in this statement you made, and repeated, "Obama is not “progressive” in the way that libs define it."
It is a false statement.
Romney as a "progressive" liberal is on the same page with all of them.
Ah, ah, ah. Context is your friend...
“Monday, May 21, 2012 11:05:11 AM · 19 of 66
netmilsmom
Obama is not “progressive” in the way that libs define it.
He is a Marxist, Communist trained, Muslim Brotherhood Jihad loving, Israeli hating, raised in Indonesia “progressive” who has been quoted as saying he wants to fundamentally change the United States.”