Sometimes, “I told you so” just doesn’t cut it. At National Review, Stanley Kurtz posted documentation to Obama’s socialist ties and the media’s refusal to cover the story:
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Kurtz points out that this isn’t new information:
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
MSM fumbled on purpose while Ben Smith was waiting and ready to run interference:
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”
Yea. And with that the whole thing fell off the radar.
Anyway, this news is currently all over the blogosphere. But Rusty at Jawa Report has the takeaway:
So, best case scenario: Obama lied to the New Party members in order to get their vote, and then lied to the American people about the lies he told the New Party.
That’s the sympathetic reading: Obama is the most crass, dirty, lying, kniving politician we’ve had in the White House since Richard Nixon. A Chicago politician’s politician. A guy with more in common with Rod Blagojevich than with Dennis Kucinish, and someone who could make Bill Clinton blush for shame.
Again, that’s best case scenario.
Then comes GOLD:
If Kurtz’s facts are right, though, the sympathetic reading is probably not the correct one. Obama’s ties to the radical left are much deeper than he would have you believe, he has actively lied about them, and he has tried to suppress any and all discussion of these ties by attacking those that report them — equivocating such reports with other more bizarre claims, such as birtherism.
I’m going to have to rethink my utter rejection of much of what Glenn Beck has been saying for the past four years. Suddenly the notion that Obama is intentionally subverting the economy as a means to remake America after the model of European socialism doesn’t seem so far fetched.