The McCain Campaign Engages in Red-Baiting
It’s not surprising when a Grade-A fool like the Costco Coulter displays her ignorance of the meaning of the most basic political terms, such as “socialism.” It’s quite another when someone who’s running for President does the same thing:
In the radio address, McCain didn’t directly call Obama a socialist, but he let the now-famous Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher nearly do it for him.
“You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism,” McCain said Saturday.
Readers, words don’t just mean whatever we want them to mean at any given moment. Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production in a centrally-planned economy. Most of us learned this in our ninth-grade Social Studies (or Civics) class.
Socialism does not mean “redistribution of wealth,” or “higher taxes,” or “taxing the rich,” or whatever else some fool decides he wants the word to mean on any given afternoon. When the word socialism is redefined to mean one of these things, the word has lost its meaning and has just become a term of abuse, just another scary word to scare the voters with.
This “socialist” silliness is just one of the many deeply foolish and nasty themes with which the kooky fringes of the right wing have been trying to dupe the American voter over the past couple of weeks, as desperation causes their shirts to get all wet and nasty with flop-sweat. If they can’t convince the people to vote their way, then by God, they’ll tell them lies to scare them.
It’s one thing to hear some kooky AM-radio talk show host or wingnut blogger say something stupid and ignorant such as “Obama’s socialist policies,” but it’s beyond pathetic to hear invocations of “socialism” come from the mouth of an ostensibly intelligent man such as Sen. McCain.
If Sen. McCain doesn’t know what the word socialism means in real life, he’s a fool. If he does actually know what the word means and still pretends to think Sen. Obama’s policy proposals resemble “socialism” in any way, shape or form, he’s a duplicitous liar who’s trying to play the American voter for a fool.
What do you think is the case, readers? Does John McCain not know what socialism is, or is he just cynically trying to dupe the voters?
Readers, Saint John Straight-Talk McCain, darling of the political press corps in Campaign 2000, was never anything but a myth. We’ve seen the real John McCain this year, and he’s an absolutely craven, cynical, deeply nasty political hack who’s willing to do and say anything to win this election. He’s even using the same robocall company that smeared him in 2000, for God’s sake. The man has sold his soul.
He claims to respect the American people, while he’s desperately trying to play them for a bunch of fucking fools.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
October 18th, 2008 @ 21:47
The words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are so much more effective with their base, though.
Wingnuts are sheep and ‘fucking fools’ and very easily riled. McCain’s problem this time around is that independent or ‘undecided’ voters aren’t buying it anymore and since Republicans are down to only 30%, they’ve got big problems.
October 18th, 2008 @ 22:44
The Merriam Webster Dictionary sez….
Aside from that, what does Senator Obama means when he says he wants to “spread the wealth around “?
Obama’s appeal for higher taxes to “spread the wealth around” nevertheless harks back to an old theme in political philosophy and American politics. You can believe in it, but it’s not exactly change, and it is more to be worried about than hoped for.
Anyway – enjoying your blog. Please keep writing!
October 18th, 2008 @ 23:06
[...] bud Dump has written an interesting post saying this about Socialism: “Socialism does not mean “redistribution of wealth,” or [...]
October 18th, 2008 @ 23:38
Fourputt, thanks for commenting, and for the link from your own blog.
Here’s some context for that “spread the wealth around” remark:
Obama didn’t say he wanted to take poor Joe’s hard-earned dough and give it to some shiftless welfare queen.
He didn’t say he wanted to take money away from rich people and give it to poor people.
He certainly didn’t say he wanted to abolish private property and usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Does this sound like “socialism”?
Obama is pro-business, and certainly no enemy of the capitalist system. Any fears of him taking bags of money away from top-hatted plutocrats and putting it in the hands of flinty-eyed pick-wielding laborers are a fantasy straight out of the 1850s.
October 19th, 2008 @ 09:00
People like Fourputt, who voted for George W. Bush twice, said the very same thing about Bill Clinton and we all know how wrong fools like Fourputt turned out to be. He and those who voted with him are the reason our country is in such a dire situation now.
If he and his ignorant and hate-filled ‘twin’ couldn’t call people ‘communists’, ‘socialists’ and ‘traitors’, they really wouldn’t much to say.
And, with Bush’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, who really is the ‘socialist’ here?
October 19th, 2008 @ 11:29
Ah, the hate-filled Stram has to chime in.
Dump – I did not vote for Bush in 2004. His domestic social spending and tariffs turned me way off. I won’t vote for McCain either.
The problem with any government program is the corruption and cronyism that usually gets its way into them. Besides, it’s not the governments job to do those things – regardless if it’s the dems or repubs.
As for the bailout – I am %1000 against it. Some good posts that I agree with about it are written by Cody Willard who co-hosts a financial program called “Happy Hour” that I Tivo. His blog is at this link
One of my favorites by him is at this link.
Take care Dump!
October 19th, 2008 @ 11:51
Ah, the ‘I did not vote for Bush in 2004′ lie. Just like Dagny who had four Bush/Cheney signs in his yard in 2004 but didn’t vote for him either.
Unfortunately Fourputt, I, unlike Filius, know you. And like your evil twin, you’re a liar.
It’s funny how 62 million people voted for Bush in 2004 and now you cannot find 12 people in the entire country who have the integrity to admit it.
October 20th, 2008 @ 08:06
”[T]he founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government… Today’s Americans hold a different vision of government. It’s one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery. At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are; nonpoor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress… You say,`Williams, don’t you believe in helping your fellow man?’ Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another’s pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation. The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment.” —Walter E. Williams
October 20th, 2008 @ 20:24
Good old Walter Williams;a man who has strongly supported the last 3 Republican presidents who are directly responsible for $9.5 trillion of our $10.3 trillion debt. A man, who like Druggie Pigboy Limbaugh, has had his head up George W. ‘The $5 trillion man’ Bush’s ass for eight solid years.
And he mentions ‘prescription drugs’? The vote on the $1.3 TRILLION 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan was, Republicans – 251 Yes 28 No — Democrats – 18 Yes 230 No.
If Walter Williams was a real economist who really cared about out of control spending he wouldn’t be the Republican. He’s almost as phony as you are Dank.
October 20th, 2008 @ 21:08
It’s interesting, isn’t it, how the right wing is rediscovering its “distrust of government” all of a sudden? After eight years of cheerleading while the Bush administration took on all kinds of extraconstitutional powers, openly declared itself to be above the law, added countless “signing statements” to bills from Congress, used the Department of Justice as a political tool, broke the law repeatedly (in the name of “national security”), tortured people overseas and spied on US citizens at home — after cheering for this behavior for eight years, now all of a sudden it’s all about “small government” and “individual rights” again.
Sorry, wingnuts, but that genie’s been out of the bottle for years now. Good luck getting it back in there. Sorry you thoughtlessly squandered your intellectual honesty, and your credibility, years ago, but you can’t just pretend like the last eight years never happened. We saw how much your “small government” principles are really worth to you.
October 20th, 2008 @ 21:26
As usual Filius, you nailed it.
You do a wonderful job of describing those two cheerleading wingnuts from Liar’s Quorum, that’s for sure.