Stanley Kurtz has been looking more deeply into Barack Obama's politics and political alliances:
While a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama's New Party ties, discussion has often turned on the New Party's alleged socialism. Was the New Party actually established by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Was the New Party's platform effectively socialist in content? Although these debates are both interesting and important, we needn't resolve them to conclude that the New Party was far to the left of the American mainstream. Whether formally socialist or not, the New Party and its ACORN backers favored policies of economic redistribution. As Obama would say, they wanted to spread the wealth around. Bracketing the socialism question and simply taking the New Party on its own terms is sufficient to raise serious questions about Obama's political commitments -- questions that cry out for attention from a responsible press.
Yes. Well, as (Democrat) Orson Scott Card points out, we haven't had a responsible press in quite a while.
Stanley Kurtz is going to pass out from over-speculation!
The man is bonkers. A genuine case of OCD.
I find it amusing that some moron bravely posting anonymously on the Internet has the gall to call an investigative journalist "bonkers" with zero basis.
> Stanley Kurtz is going to pass out from over-speculation!
Kurtz cites a number of facts. Does the critic have any evidence that any of those "facts" are false?
For example, did the "new party" endorse Obama when he ran for IL state senate?
Was the head of the new party also head of Acorn?
Did Obama defend Acorn on the dates specified?
How about identifying some of the so called "speculation"?