Tom DeLay's right-wing minstrel show

Clearly "radical" and "socialist" have been focus-group proven to drive negatives.

As for Wright and DeLay: It's No Exit for both of them!

This bloviating a##hat wouldn't know a Marxist if Karl himself showed up to slap his face and call him Shirley. What a maroon. Not to mention thief. Not to mention scoundrel.

Rod: "I only wish he and Rev. Wright would be stuck in the MSNBC Green Room together for eternity."

After Blue Oyster Cult, "Don't Fear the Reaper"

Hammer Time is done
And the Rev Wright's gone
Revum Wright and Tom DeLay
Are together in eternity [Revum Wright and Tom DeLay...]
40,000 change the channel every day [On Revum Wright and Tom DeLay...]
40,000 find new pricks along the way [Redefine a-penis...]
Another 40,000 bite it everyday [While we take our numbers...]
Come on baby [Don't queer the Freeper]
Baby take my hand [Don't cheer the Leap Year]
We'll be able to fly [Don't fear the cheap beer]
Baby I'm your man...

"Marxism" and "socialism" have gotten a bad rap. If it hadn't been for the guillotines and the gulags, Marxism might have had a chance.

Mr. Dreher:

Perhaps you could provide some substance to your ad hominem attack on Mr. Delay.

Is this just one of those things we are to simply understand? Does the video simply "speak for itself?" Am I to now lend credence to gravedigger Christopher Matthews.

What did Mr. Delay say that was so beyond the pale, that in your mind put him in line just behind Jeremiah Wright, a man whose every public word has been an expression of complete contempt for America and its values?

Of the opinions expressed by Mr. Delay, which are enough to cast him as a grotesquery?

Mr. Delay has reviewed the record, the associations, the plans, and the rhetoric of Senator Obama and he has come to the reasonable opinion that his record, his associations, his plans and his rhetoric stand apart from American tradition and values. Perhaps, Mr. Dreher, you could point to Mr. Obama's record, plans or any other aspect of this man which speaks to any generally held conservative value regarding individual freedom, limited government, the sanctity of life, and the unapologetic defense of the country. Perhaps you could explain exactly where Mr. Delay has entered the theater of the absurd.

It is Sydney Brillo Duodenum's mere opinion that much has changed in this country these past eight years, so much so, that an unrepentent radical like Senator Obama is able to rise from obscurity to take hold of what has become a morally bankrupted, corrupt and adrift enterprise called the Democratic Party, which, with the complicitness of a liberal media industry, are offering what's old, failed and destructive as hopeful change. Conservatism is certainly adrift, and many are bailing as fast as they can until a new ship is ready, but in the meantime, we are all about to set sail on Obama's foul vessel, and it behooves us to pay attention to the old mariners, the Tom Delays, who are telling us in no uncertain terms, Here Be Monsters.

I actually know a couple of normally intelligent conservatives who have been trying to convince me that Obama is a socialist. It's the most bizzaro thing. The basis of the claim seems to be that Obama would raise income taxes on the wealthy to fund programs for the poor, which is, um, wealth redistribution and therefor, clearly, Obama is a socialist. I keep pointing out that if this is their definition of socialism, then they need to peg every single politician (including John McCain) since the introduction of the income tax in this country as socialist. Our income tax system has always taxed the wealthy at higher rates than the less wealthy! There may be legitimate points to be made about our tax system and if Obama's tax increases are too high (I think they may be myself), but to try and win the argument by yelling "socialist" is just dumb and counter-productive. I don't get why people are doing it.

Delay came into the Great Midwestern Ice Cream Company store in Iowa City, Iowa when I worked there during college in the 1980's. Seemed like a nice guy. Also brought his mug (his coffee mug, that is) back up to the counter instead of leaving it on his table to be bussed by the likes of me. Lots of those clove cigarette smoking-petui (sp?) smelling hippies never did. Just left the mug and the trash on the table. Spreading the wealth, I guys.

So, I got nothing negative to say about Delay, despite the posted screed by RD. What he'd ever do to you?

I'm from Chicago. I know all about "Reverend" Wright. He is not a nice guy.

Can't say it any more succinctly than this:

"You have to pinch yourself – a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so."

Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK), Oct. 14, 2008

Impolite, indeed. Even grotesque.

DeLay is looking sort of botoxed in that interview

Michael, So, Obama had an unformed world view well past college and law school when he ran into this crowd? He made it all the way through law school as an unformed naif just waiting to be lured in by radical master minds bent on drawing him into their radical worldviews? Funny, by the time I was in my early 20s, I had a pretty set world view. Sure it's changed and shifted since then, but somehow I came out the other side of all my "radical" associates and friends with my world view in pretty decent shape. And to think, I didn't even have the benefit of having gone through law school before I was exposed to my first African American rant on the evil, oppressive USA. It's just a miracle I survived, I tell you!

And do you really expect us to believe that he has no other friends besides Wright, Rezko and Ayers? Are we really supposed to believe this? Really? So every time he wanted to figure out something he was just too dumb to figure out on his own like, say, the nature of property rights in America (these lawyers types really don't learn about such things in law school any anything) he would call uncle billy for a lesson in marxism? Or when he wanted to figure out why he had such a hard time hailing a cab in downtown Chicago he called grandpa Jerry for black nationalist insight? Because he's really just that dumb? Get real.

Unless you can pull a membership card for the "young socialist" group out of your hats from back in his college days your argument doesn't pass the smell test, much less the laugh test.

OK, so let me see if I get this right:

"Delay is correct to say that Obama is a socialist. Obama fits the very definition of the word."
and
"He will be just one more corporate puppet in a long long line of corporate puppets. You don't raise that kind of money and then turn your back on the corporations that gave it to you."

Hmmm. May I venture that a wee little bit of cognitive dissonance seems to be evidenced here?

Oh, and BTW, if Obama's a socialist because he believe in that whole 'redistribution" thing, then does that mean Nixon was a Trotskyite because he tried to get a national minimal income established during his presidency? Does that mean Eisenhower was a Stalinist because he oversaw a graduated income tax that went up to 90%? Yes, 90%!
Man, in comparison Obama sounds downright Milton Friedmanish!
But hey, history is filled with those stupid things called facts, and we can't have those, can we!

Rod,

Delay was a Texas Congressman and you're a Texas-based journalist and so we can guess that you have reasons to dislike the guy. That's your prerogative.

However, if you were reading the transcript of this appearance and you did NOT know it was Delay speaking -- in other words, if you judged the comments objectively on their face value -- then on what basis would you object to them?

The epithets "radical" and "Marxist" are being applied to Obama based on recently-revealed comments of his from earlier in this decade and speculation about his long-held associations and alliances with a variety of nutcases.

Shouldn't we be examining the evidence and debating the merits of the proposition ... rather than engage in "ad hominen" snarkiness toward a Texas political figure who utters them? Wouldn't that be the more "conservative" thing to do, Rod? Who cares that you don't care for Delay. He's not running for President. Obama is.

Hi "me",

Re your post at 6:51, you kind of missed my point. The key word there is "analogous". A supposedly mainstream conservative who counted as friends a KKK Grand Dragon and an abortion clinic bomber would be analogous to a supposedly mainstream liberal who counts as friends the racist Rev. Wright and the terrorist Ayers.

Get it?

Irenicum,

Learn to read.
I said, VERY clearly that although Obama IS a socialist, he won't be able to implement his philosophy. He's been co-opted(as they all have).
No CD here, and trust me, I'm way more savvy than you are.

Guys, I agree that Obama is a liberal -- one of the most liberal liberals in Washington -- but to call him a Marxist? Is that really true, or fair? Or is reckless rhetorical bomb-throwing? Maybe it's just where I live, but I'm so tired of hearing that Obama is a scary Muslim, Obama is a scary Marxist, etc. As I wrote to a New York friend tonight, it reminds me of the crazy way New York liberals would talk about the demonic right-wing theocrats (like me) who were going to do awful things to the country if they extended their power. It's the language of manipulation and fear, and DeLay is, or was, a master of it.

There's a reasonable critique to be made of Obama's policies and his philosophical orientation without having to call him a disciple of one of history's great philosophical villains. When Republicans go that route, it smells of desperation. If Obama is a Marxist, then half the Democrats in Congress must be Marxists too. Anybody who supports the progressive income tax -- which is to say, most people --is a closet Engels acolyte. You know?

Mr. Dreher @ 9:43 PM writes:

"If Obama is a Marxist, then half the Democrats in Congress must be Marxists too. Anybody who supports the progressive income tax -- which is to say, most people --is a closet Engels acolyte."

Half ? Only half ? I'd say 95 % of the Democrat faction and a good 75 % of the GOP faction qualify. Shoot, the Pelosi/Reid-types and their fanboys are more accurately described as Marxist/Leninists. Collectivists, to a man. The only major public figure of note in the Congress who even remotely qualifies as a NON-Marxist is Ron Paul.

As Joe Haldeman might have written, Christ and Charlie help us all.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Two things;

First, that last post was, in fact, mine. My apologies for the oversight in not making that more clear.

Second, I am not a supporter of the "progressive income tax". Or of any income tax, for that matter. (Don't ask me what sort of taxes I DO support, not unless you really want to rip the lid off the can of rockets.....)

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Karth, I'll take the bait. What sort of taxes DO you support?

Zaccheus Treed @ 10:25 PM writes:

"Karth, I'll take the bait. What sort of taxes DO you support?"

Now you've gone and done it.... :-)

To the extent I think highly of ANY tax (the word "tax" ranks right up there with the word "spittoon" in my book) I think rather highly of excise taxes (more commonly known as sales taxes to the likes of you and me). These sorts of taxes at least allow for a certain amount of freedom of choice. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy tobacco/liquor/whatever. I can deal with this one.

I could probably get behind a poll tax. No, strike that. I think a poll tax would be a great idea. (For all you howling-statist types out there: Yes, I am aware of its use for racial purposes. Now go play with your dollies somewhere else; the grownups are talking.) One of the problems I have with the current tax structure is the fact that many millions of people don't pay income taxes, yet get Federal tax "rebates". This distorts the political process, because there is no link between cost and benefit. Just as the Colonials advocated "No Taxation Without Representation", I think it may be time for "No Representation Without Taxation". Taxes and the franchise should perhaps go together; a natural feedback loop. If that means a fee for exercising the privilege of the sovereign franchise, so be it.

Property taxes ? Not bloomin' likely. The existence of such taxes renders the notion of private property in land a nullity; your house is not yours, it belongs to you only as long as you keep the county/town/school district happy.

I think the payroll tax is an abomination unto the Lord and a scandal unto the jaybirds. For that matter, any tax that does not allow for some exemption, that does not exempt some fraction of a person's income from confiscation, destroys the idea of personal private property. Refer such taxes to the jaybirds to be excreted upon.

An entry/exit tax on tourists and immigrants strikes me as a great idea. Fees in general don't bother me that much. Again, it gets back to voluntariness.

Income taxes, as the record has shown, are nasty devices. As von Hayek and others pointed out, it is way, WAY too easy to jigger the tax code to discriminate against one sort of person or another. The way, for example, that the Internal Revenue Code discriminates against families with children, successful businesses and their proprietors, and people who save. Jaybird time !

Let's not forget the connection to government spending. Sure, the tax structure I could support would not lend itself to taking large portions of the national income. Sure, we'd have to reduce or cut out large parts of the central-government or provincial budgets. Sure, lots of people would have to make do without certain comfortable programs.

That's the point. The concept in question is referred to as "liberty" or "freedom". It's one that large numbers of Americans, both elite and commoner alike, could stand getting reacquainted with.

Next question.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

"There's a reasonable critique to be made of Obama's policies and his philosophical orientation without having to call him a disciple of one of history's great philosophical villains. When Republicans go that route, it smells of desperation. If Obama is a Marxist, then half the Democrats in Congress must be Marxists too. Anybody who supports the progressive income tax -- which is to say, most people --is a closet Engels acolyte. You know?"

Rod--progressive taxation is something I support too. Look--I don't think any of this bomb throwing is going to work, but that doesn't mean it ain't true. I find it pretty unnerving when we have a candidate that supports a positive rights constitution when we clearly have one that enshrines negative rights--not such amorphous concepts as the "right to work" or the "right to economic fairness," which is typical of western European style Constitutions. That's a far cry from progressive taxation. It's a blank check to "interpret whatever the hell you want" in a way we can't even begin to fathom under our current system.

The "welfare" view of Obama's tax breaks are one view--many of the credits could be akin to earned income tax. In that sense, it is of a redistributionist type different than mere progressive income tax. On the other hand, I guess the opposing argument is that it gives them a "tax break" from payroll, sales, and other state and local taxes that are more "flat."

Let's just hope that the forces of nature make this a presidency from the center-left.

I have no idea if Obama is a "socialist." But I do know that conservatives don't have a lot to brag about in the matter of the economy.

"me," first of all, please pick a better handle. You write:

"Michael, So, Obama had an unformed world view well past college and law school when he ran into this crowd?"

No, the formation had already begun under many socialists: his father, stepfather, childhood mentor (Frank Davis), and the radical professors and fellow students at college that he says in his autobiography he deliberately sought out.

Zacchaeus Treed @ 11:54 PM writes:

"Will that structure ensure enough of a kitty to maintain the infrastructure? Interstates, bridges, etc., etc. I mean, some big-budget central spending makes good sense. Serves private commerce and the common good, indisputably. And what about nat'l defense?"

I imagine that a bit of realignment would have to be done. On the spending end, scrapping entitlements would yield a cut of 55 % of all central-government spending. That would do wonders for feeding the kitty. The numbers I've seen for both spending and "acceptable" composition of tax revenue aren't all that far out of line. It would depend on the size of either the national sales tax or the poll tax one wanted to use.

As far as permissible spending, certainly the Constitution justifies national defense. Infrastructure too, if one chooses to stretch a point. At least we'd be arguing over things that are actually mentioned in the document, as opposed to programs that spit in the face of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Admittedly I've only roughed out the numbers (getting exact stats might take a few hours), but I'll bet it could be done.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Karth, you have a sane outlook on government revenue and spending. It is both refreshing and depressing, the latter because we have no elected representatives who are at all likely to bring that sanity to the status quo.

An excellent treatise on taxation may be found in the collected Federalist Papers. It is also a fascinating look at what was considered effective political propaganda back in the day. Reader beware: you run the risk of becoming even more depressed when seeing how far we've fallen from the founders' attempt to create a sane national government.

I realize that I'm promoting an off-topic tangent on this thread, and with due respect to Rod, modern political propaganda has found nothing new under the sun at least since the Watergate breakins. The prevailing wisdom is just as Aaron Sorkin wrote in the movie "The American President":

He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

What is remarkable, to me, about the Obama campaigns (including the primary) is not that they abstained from those two things -- they used them, no doubts -- but that they managed to find constructive-sounding spins to convey them.

"Marxism" and "socialism" have gotten a bad rap. If it hadn't been for the guillotines and the gulags, Marxism might have had a chance.

Oh brother, what an asinine statement.

One of the problems I have with the current tax structure is the fact that many millions of people don't pay income taxes, yet get Federal tax "rebates".

Is this true apart from Bush's handout this year?

Mrs. T