Barack Obama sought the New Party's endorsement knowing it was a radical left organization

There's no other conclusion when you see what the New Party was and who put it together

By Erick Posted in | | | | Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Last week we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party: which raises the question: what is the New Party? It’s easy to allege that this group is closely tied to former communists, but digging in to the New Party and Obama’s involvement, a very dirty picture presents itself. In fact, it is abundantly apparent that Barack Obama not only knew what the New Party was when he sought its endorsement, but through his ties with ACORN, the radical left activist organization, Obama used his radical left connections to get elected to the Illinois State Senate.

Most of the New Party’s history has been lost in the digital age. It was established in 1992 and started to die out in 1998, well before Google and the modern web were established. But through lengthy searches of the Nexis archive and microfilm at the local university library, I’ve been able to piece this together.

The New Party was established in 1992 “by union activist Sandy Pope and University of Wisconsin professor Joel Rogers,” USA Today reported on November 16, 1992. The paper wrote that the new party was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’”

Throughout its creation and rise, the New Party sought to unite alienated leftists who had grown disgusted by Bill Clinton’s embrace of the center-left Democratic Leadership Council. The Wisconsin State Journal summed up where the Left was in February of 1992. “Angry Americans,” Jesse Waldman wrote, “particularly left-wing Democrats, are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils when they go to the ballot now.” A July 4, 1996, column in the Los Angeles Times by Todd Gitlin, which championed the New Party as “both old-fashioned and elegant” proclaimed the New Party as a path to victory for leftists alienated by the Democrats and Republicans. Capturing the mood of the left in a May 31, 1998 article for the leftist magazine In These Times, Doug Ireland wrote, “As Bob Master of the Communication Workers of America — the point-man for the new labor ballot line — puts it: ‘The political perspective of labor and working people has no voice in state politics, especially since the Democratic Party has moved to the right.”

The seeds, however, had been sown all the way back in 1988. Quoting John Nichols in the March 22, 1998 issue of In These Times, “The roots of the New Party go back to the aftermath of Jesse Jackson’s run for president in 1988. At that time, Dan Cantor, who had served as labor coordinator for the Jackson campaign, and University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joel Rogers began talking about how to formulate an alternative between the increasingly indistinguishable Democratic-Republican monolith.”

It is no great leap to say, as a result, that Barack Obama’s rise to the Democratic nomination is the child of Jesse Jackson’s defeat.

Read on . . .

Understanding Fusion

In light of dissatisfaction with the Democrats' rightward drift, the New Party set about establishing itself as a third-party third-way for ballot access. “Fusion,” was the idea. Continuing with Jesse Waldman from the Wisconsin State Journal, “[Fusion] would allow a left-wing candidate … to run as both a Democrat and [a third party] candidate. Proponents of this ‘fusion’ strategy include Mary K. Baum, co-chair of Wisconsin Labor-Farm, and Joel Rogers, a UW-Madison law and sociology professor who has helped organize The New Party.”

Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate, let’s call him Barack Obama, received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.

The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. “[The Wall Street] Journal’s editorialists fretted last fall about how the New Party was responsible for a labor movement that was drifting leftward …. As [openly declared socialist] Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) puts it, ‘If the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes after you, you can pretty well bet you’re doing the right thing.’”

Nichols’s article goes into detail about the New Party’s scope. “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century …. In 1996, it helped Chicago’s Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district …. The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”

Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1998 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept unconstitutional was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.1

Onward to the Socialist Utopia

The New Party was designed as a loose confederation of unions, socialists, communists, and black activists who shared common values, but often had different goals. According to John Nichols, its party platform included:

  • full employment
  • a shorter work week
  • a guaranteed minimum income for all adults and a universal “social wage”
  • full public financing of elections with universal voter registration
  • “the democratization of banking and financial systems”, which included public control and regulation of banking
  • a more progressive tax system
  • reductions in military spending and an end to unilateral military interventions.

In Arkansas, Minnesota, Oregon, and other places the New Party has worked hand in hand with ACORN and local unions to block public policy changes that have included prison expansion, government subsidized stadiums, and zoning changes to bring in “big box” stores. In 2000, Missoula County, Montana Commissioner Barbara Evans, after fighting the New Party over buidling a home-improvement store, told the Oregonian, “They’re bad news. I consider them socialist-communist in their beliefs.”

On December 1, 1994, after the Gingrich revolution swept the Democrats from congress and forced Bill Clinton to triangulate, the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Steve Mills entitled “Looking for the Left: The Old Progressives and Marxists Still Breathe Idealist Fire, but They’re Too Spintered to Generate Any Heat.”

“‘The Left is in crisis, and it has been for some time,’ said Carl Davidson, the former national secretary for the radical Students for a Democratic Society. ‘I don’t know if it’s even bottomed out yet,’” he reported to Mr. Mills. Mills continued, “The Socialist Workers Party is in this corner; the International Socialist Organization is in this one. The [communist group Committee of Correspondence] is in another. The radicals, or even the liberals with some radical leanings — so-called ‘soft radicals’ — seem to find it hard to abandon individual issues for a broader movement.”

But, Mills reported, “It is amid this political confusion that The New Party would like to step in. ‘If there’s anything that defines the American Left, it’s fragmentation,’ said Dan Cantor, the party’s national organizer.… The New Party aims to change that. By uniting the progressives behind a cohesive ideology, one that, in theory at least, will have room for all the factions that now litter the landscape of the Left, The New Party is confident progressives can again be strong.”

The New Party, ACORN, and Growth

Steve Mills, writing for the Chicago Tribune, spent some time surveying where the New Party stood in 1994 Chicago, two years before Obama sought and received its endorsement. “Although its Chicago organization is not yet fully formed, in other parts of the country it has run candidates in local races.” The races had, at that time, all been fairly small. However, they had not yet fully connected with Barack Obama. Dan Cantor, ironic given Obama’s preacher problems of late, summed up his vision for the New Party as it headed into Chicago, telling Steve Mills, “We’re of that Left tradition that thinks we could have a majority out there someday.… We want to build a church, not a sect. Because if the Left is going to amount to anything, it’s going to be made up of groups have have reached their limit on one issue.”

In 1993, the New Party had moved into New York to be a major player. Newsday’s Bob Liff interviewed Jan Pierce, the local organizer for the New Party. Pierce told Liff that David Dinkins was the type of progressive candidate New Party members liked. As the party tried to take off in New York, it was not only trying to get access to the ballot, “but to have some ideological purity.” In fact, the New Party had made such a name for itself that Al Sharpton had considered an attempt at the New Party’s endorsement for the United States Senate.

In 1995, Newsday reported “New Party-endorsed candidates have run in 120 elections for school board and zoning board and city councils, winning 77 races, including a Chicago alderman’s slot.”

By 1996, the New Party had solidified its ties with ACORN, unions, and the left so much so that even the New York Times referred to it as “leftist.” Manning Marable, writing in the left-wing New York Beacon, on October 23, 1996, wrote that “there are four key components in this strategy for progressive political change.” Among those components were civil disobedience and “support for independent movements like the New Party which are running candidates in local races. More importantly an innovative approach to electoralism is represented by ACORN’s ‘living wage’ referenda campaigns.”

The Chicago Democratic Socialists of America were quite pleased in 1996 with the New Party’s success including the election of “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, [who] encouraged [New Party members] to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration”. (h/t to Rick Moran)

In These Times reported on February 17, 1997, that “the [New] [P]arty, with 80 members in the [17th] ward, many of whom are also active in the Service Employees International Union and the advocacy group ACORN, has begun to build a parallel precinct organization.”

Obama’s Rise

With the New Party’s rise and its entanglements with ACORN came the rise of Barack Obama. According to Stanley Kurtz, “Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s ‘New Left,’ with a ‘1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism’ to match.” And Barack Obama was ACORN’s lawyer.

Using his position at ACORN in 1995, Obama set up the playing field for his election the following year. The Boston Globe reports, “Obama was part of a team of attorneys who represented the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in 1995 for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters. A federal court ordered the state to implement the law.” The Globe also notes, “Obama was part of a team of lawyers representing black voters and aldermen that forced Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the City Council drew up after the 1990 census. They said the boundaries were discriminatory. After an appeals court ruled the map violated the federal Voting Rights Act, attorneys for both sides drew up a new set of ward boundaries.”

With districts redrawn, ingratiating himself to black politicians on his side of the city, and rules loosened on voter registration, Obama could set out to run. And he did. Obama sought the New Party endorsement, which required him to sign a contract that he would keep up his relationship with the New Party.

The end of the story is simple. Obama won the New Party’s nomination and, through fusion with his Democratic votes, he became the Democratic nominee. Using ACORN’s get out the vote efforts and relying on his gerrymandered Democrat district, Obama moved on to the State Senate. While there, he paid back the New Party and the far left. He opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, he opposed legislation that would have prohibited the sale of pornography across the street from elementary schools and churches, and he supported allowing criminals to sue their victims if their victims injured the criminals in self-defense.

Fast forward twelve years and Obama is running as fast as he can away from the New Party brand. But beyond a shadow of a doubt, Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate. The New Party was, and as it still exists is, an amalgamation of the left and far left designed to attract far left candidates and move the Democratic Party back to the left. Barack Obama is an example of the New Party’s success.

Thank God William Rehnquist ruled fusionism unconstitutional when he did, or there’d be more of these latent communists on the march upward into the political establishment.


  1. Fusion is generally prohibited by law in the majority of states, but it survives in a few states in various forms. Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont have some form of fusion. New Hampshire has fusion elections if write-in candidates win primary nominations.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | McCain's One-Term PledgeComments (61) »
Barack Obama sought the New Party's endorsement knowing it was a radical left organization 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Eric

Great stuff, but how do you make all this information into a 30 second commercial to sell the idea of Saint Obama being a typical do anything, associate with anyone to get elected kind of Chicago pol?

Maybe:

This is the New Party

This is what the New Party beleives

This is Saint Obama, who sought and was endorsed by the New Party and advanced their agenda in the Illinois legislature after winning election on their platform.

Does Saint Obama still agree with the principles of the New Party?

Hope Not!

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

...swing voters will remember all of this noise about Obama's latent radicalism.

We have to keep making these points in every forum we can, and great research like Erick's is what makes it possible to do so.

With time and repetition, this will become the backstory of the campaign, the "buzz," if you will: Obama has overtly and actively embraced a radicalism with Sixties roots, that most Americans recognize and are frightened of.

There's nothing vague about this. And this will stick to him.

I liked you idea for the spot, Steve. I just want to spice up the ending a little. As follows:

This is Saint Obama, who sought and was endorsed by the New Party and advanced their agenda in the Illinois legislature after winning election on their platform.

Does Saint Obama still agree with the principles of the New Party?

Obama IS the candidate of hope and change. . .

So we can only hope he's changed his mind!

"Ninety percent of this game is half mental." Swami Yogi Maha-Berra.

...what is so bad about ACORN? I mean, maybe I missed something (I probably did, hence the comment), but you've stated some opinions on zoning and a quotation by an outside group that they're socialist. Unconvincing.

New: (-1.50, -5.33)

Erick links to Kurtz, and Kurtz links to a couple of pieces on why ACORN is bad. Apparently they're a leader of that "living wage" movement, for example.

HTML Help for Red Staters

can be found here.

Voter fraud is only the tip of this iceberg.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Hopebamma.

In the general election the 527's are going to have to go head on with questions about past associations with these sort of groups.

Middle America does not know HopeBamma, and the MSM is not going to cover these sorts of past associations, so going direct to the folks to educate them on who Hopebamma really is and who he really represents is going to be the order of the day.

I don't think yelling Liberal Liberal Liberal will work, going to have to show that there are Liberals, and then there are ACORNS of the world and Hopebamma is a product of the likes of ACORN and the New Party.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Too bad the RNC and our squishes are so spineless.

Obama's coattails will have the potential to drag the entire Democratic field, not just his advisors, under the bus.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

what is so bad about ACORN

They seem to have a problem.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

And Obama's carefully woven web of deception continues to unravel...

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

5/5/5 by PhxG

Too bad the MSM won;t run it. Perhaps it's time to ask Rush for a loan to do a full page USA Today ad.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

...the assumption is that socialists are lazy, and you expect alleged defenders of socialism to click-through not once, but twice. Informed practicality is lost on you people.

PS: I'm not a socialist, as should be obvious by now. I am a former Democratic Socialist (of America).

PPS: I don't see the "living wage" as socialism, either. I see it as something y'all disagree with just as much as the minimum wage. It's moderated capitalism, which I assume many of you have problems with just as much as socialism. But it's hardly pure Marxism.

PPPS: Oh, I am lazy, don't expect a defense against that. People don't ask questions in comments who aren't terribly lazy. Mea culpa.

New: (-1.50, -5.33)

...did I just commit the "reply to this" sin with a snarky comment. Shame, shame on me. This comment was meant for Neil above. Amateur mistake, and so I have no excuse.

New: (-1.50, -5.33)

...I instruct you to come up with a suitable punishment, implement it upon yourself, and let us know when you're done atoning.

If you could also shake the Finger of Shame at yourself in the process, that would be ideal. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

will work very hard to implement their agenda. What they are is WRONG, VERY VERY WRONG since their ideology doesn't work the way they think it does. They typically believe they are for freedom when in fact their very ideal require government oppression in order to function.

They typically believe corporations are an evil in and of themselves even though most don't understand what a corporation actually is.

They typically believe the extreme forms of conservatism or libertarianism lead to fascism even though they can't explain how being for small government on the extreme leads to statism. (It's actually a branch of socialist thought that incorporated nationalism as a tool to unite the masses and allowed corporations to continue existing as long as they met the goals of the State.)

The Democratic Socialists are delusional. You can't have individual liberty in any system in which the government doesn't allow economic freedom. Socialism (democratic or otherwise), by definition restricts economic freedom.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Where he just ran on having the same name as the dead candidate ?

This one just seems to assume people are punching names at random without actually reading the ballot. (Butterfly Ballot and Buchanan does seem to imply the Dems believe this)


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Obama's political roots are straight Marxist and need to be explored and exposed. The MSM won't do the job, I'm confident that this election season will bring it all to the attention of the American people.

Obama is the most leftwing candidate since former VP Henry Wallace ran for President in 1948 in a campaign run and funded by American Communists.

"The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”

With the absurd leftist policies that seem to be in the offing should Obamessiah take office, I wonder if the New Party is still silently with us.

I don't believe for a nano-second that BO's money is coming from small donations. He has neutered the FEC and somehow he has solved the problem of routing big union and Soros' dollars into his campaign as small donations. Somewhere in Chicago, there's a boiler room operation writing checks and stuffing envelopes. Follow the money. Given his base, you know he's gaming the system.

When contemplating two competing models, both of which explain the observed facts, the simplest of the two should be embraced.

Occam's razor

ACORN has other friends in the Democratic Party than just Barack Obama. Howard Dean is one of them, as he was photographed in Louisiana doing construction work with Project ACORN in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. More recently, John Edwards created a "Louisiana Home Rescue Fund" administered by ACORN with money from his personal fortune. And of course, ACORN is active in the various and sundry World Social Fora that occur periodically to organize the grassroots against capitalism, imperialism and globalization.

ACORN right at this moment has a blurb on their website about their most recent trip to the WSF in January of this year.

In January of this year, ACORN member Jamie Partridge traveled to Venezuela for the World Social Forum. The WSF is an annual meeting held by social justice groups around the globe to coordinate campaigns, share and refine organizing strategies, and inform each other about movements from around the world and their issues.
Upon his return from Venezuela, Jamie put together a presentation on the host country. He presented this slideshow to ACORN members at our monthly Potluck Training. He covered the basics of Venezuela’s recent revolution, a history of their government, and an in-depth look at their current social programs.
The discussion led to a detailed talk on the importance of grassroots organizing and the individual’s role in the big picture.

The World Social Forum is, of course, a loosely-organized collection of groups ranging from the far-left to the doppler shift left who meet every couple of years to toil for the workers. They no longer call it thw World Socialist Forum because as Maxine Waters knows, using the word Socialist (or in her case, "Socialize") is a deprecated entry in the stealth revolutionary code book. But despite their internal squabbles (and there are many), the WSF and its constituent groups have many common goals and common dreams:

The World Social Forum (WSF) is an annual meeting held by members of the anti-globalization (using the term globalization in a doctrinal sense not a literal one) or alter-globalization movement to coordinate world campaigns, share and refine organizing strategies, and inform each other about movements from around the world and their issues. It tends to meet in January when its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum is meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This is not a coincidence. The date was chosen because of the logistical difficulty of organizing a mass protest in Davos and to try to overshadow the coverage of the World Economic Forum in the news media.
...
The third WSF was again held in Porto Alegre, in January 2003. There were many parallel workshops, including, for example the Life After Capitalism workshop, which proposed focussed discussion on non-communist, non-capitalist, participative possibilities for different aspects of social, political, economic, communication structures [1]. Among the speakers was famed American linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky.
...
The fifth World Social Forum for 2005 was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil between 26 January and 31 January. There were 155,000 registered participants at the Forum, with most coming from Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Uruguay, and France. A number of participants in the forum released the Porto Alegre Manifesto.
...

So Barack Obama represented ACORN and ACORN is an active participant in the WSF, working for the day when "Life After Capitalism" will be the reality for everyone on the planet.

Someone should ask Barack if under an Obama Presidency he'll ditch the World Economic Forum in Davos in favor of being the keynote speaker at the WSF.

It should be abundantly clear to even the most casual observer by this point that Barack Obama is by dint of his advocacy and his connections the farthest-left Presidential candidate to get as far as he has in more than 50 years, and maybe in history. His campaign has gone to great lengths to downplay this fact, but the more people learn about Obama and his connections and his friends and their ideology, the more they should think again about his vision of Hope and Change.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

Because if "mainstream" journalists were doing the same level of investigative work into Barack Obama's past and his present connections and funding as they have in the past 8 years of the Bush administration, all of these facts would be front-page news at the largest newspapers in the United States.

These are simple things to find, they don't require much digging. Seasoned investigative reports who are genuinely interested in keeping the public informed should be reporting these connections, in the interest of letting the people know who they are voting for. The big question is whether or not their dereliction of duty will continue through the fall.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

to take over the DNC for years.
Obama may be their biggest success.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

There's no way this empty suit got where he's at on his on.

We cannot let this 'Manchurian Candidate' waltz into the White House and push the Liberal Agenda. I just came across a great video post by the American Conservative Union at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU6GSl2yu_o It is a chillingly honest eye-opener.

I'm glad you did it, and I'm not glad that the MSM didn't.

1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney

I read down to this:

* full employment
* a shorter work week
* a guaranteed minimum income for all adults and a universal “social wage”
* full public financing of elections with universal voter registration
* “the democratization of banking and financial systems”, which included public control and regulation of banking
* a more progressive tax system
* reductions in military spending and an end to unilateral military interventions.

This is GR8! If the New Party wants to do all of this, where do I sign up?

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks when I return to The Vigil.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Semi-far-leftist scum, yes, but right in there with ACORN and MoveOn, and much less effectual. I'm more alarmed by Obama's ties to Bill Ayers.

BTW, Obama didn't need New Party votes to get his first nomination. He challenged the nominating petitions of all the other candidates, and was unopposed.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service