-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Dead Terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev Channeled Islamic Videos
April 19, 2013 | 67 comments
The Spectacle Blog
CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien believes President Obama is a Communist.
At least, that’s the corner she backed herself into in a set-to with former GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell. And O’Donnell performed a valuable public service this morning illustrating what’s really going on over at CNN. Now that the late Andrew Breitbart’s name has become a verb, concerning taking down the left-leaning media, you might say Christine O’Donnell Breitbarted Soledad O’Brien.
Take a good look at this CNN clip in which O’Donnell and CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien square off, the former with some assistance from Utah’s Congressman Jason Chafetz.
In the clip, Ms. O’Donnell says — correctly — that the 2012 campaign is essentially about “capitalism versus collectivism.” She accurately cites President’s Obama’s well-stated beliefs in redistributing wealth (here’s an example) and economic equality as well as nationalizing private business. Although O’Donnell didn’t cite it, the Obama’s administration’s government takeover of General Motors is exactly an example of “nationalizing.”
O’Brien immediately gets worked up and says that when O’Donnell uses the word “collectivism” O’Donnell is accusing President Obama of being “a communist.”
Actually, that isn’t what O’Donnell said. At no time did she accuse the President of being a communist. Period. Yet O’Brien kept trying to get O’Donnell to say it. So O’Donnell said this:
“President Obama himself has said that he wants to nationalize more of the private sector, and that’s not what America is all about.”
O’Brien bridles. She becomes visibly agitated. A debate is suddenly on and the two spar on nationalizing, with O’Brien indignant the President would be accused of nationalizing. Citing the fact that her mother is from Cuba, O’Brien says she knows something about the subject.
O’Brien: “So when you talk about ‘nationalizing’ something and you’re really taking sort of the words that they use in Cuba, frankly. And Communism. Really.”
Stop right here.
Now why in the world would Soledad O’Brien get so visibly agitated at O’Donnell’s insistence that Mr. Obama is in favor of nationalizing?
Ms. O’Brien is a smart woman. Surely she knows as a CNN anchor that O’Donnell was correct that the president is a fan of nationalizing. And O’Donnell certainly isn’t alone in saying so.
For example, here’s the Washington Post in June of 2009 (bold emphasis mine):
President Obama laid out his case yesterday for committing billions of dollars more to the rescue of General Motors, arguing that the nationalization of the industrial giant was necessary to bolster the foundering U.S. economy.
… The government has needed to take ownership stakes in private enterprises during the economic crisis, Obama said yesterday, “for the simple and compelling reason that their survival and the success of our overall economy depend on it.”
But hey, Soledad, if President Obama himself and the Washington Post aren’t enough of an authority to back up Christine, here’s perhaps an even better authority on the subject of Mr. Obama’s record on nationalizing.
That would be no less than Fidel Castro’s old chum, Venezuelan’s leftist leader Hugo Chavez. As seen here, when Chavez noted the President’s GM takeover and referred to him as “Comrade Obama” for nationalizing GM — saying that if he, Chavez, and Cuba’s Communist dictator Castro didn’t watch out they would be to the right of Obama.
Interesting, no?
Humorously, Hugo Chavez, President Obama, and the Washington Post all are on exactly the same page as Christine O’Donnell. They all agree: Obama loves nationalizing. The only difference being O’Donnell is appalled at nationalizing.
When O’Brien insists that saying Obama believes in nationalizing is to accuse him of being a communist, O’Donnell immediately closes the trap O’Brien got herself into, and correctly says:
“You’re saying that the words that they use in Cuba are coming from President Obama.”
To which an alarmed O’Brien, perhaps realizing what’s she done, vehemently replies:
“Oh certainly not! You’re saying that!”
Fascinating.
What Christine O’Donnell has accomplished here is to out O’Brien as yet another standard leftist who masquerades as an objective journalist, this time at CNN.
We’ve written two items this week, here and here, about the role NewsBusters is playing in exposing the leftward bias of the mainstream media.
Noting specifically the first appearance of this bias in the very first modern presidential campaign of 1960. It was in that Kennedy-Nixon campaign that Pulitzer Prize winning author Theodore H. White specifically noted the blatant behind-the-scenes tilt of the national media (or “the press” as it was generally called in 1960). Wrote White of this bias, the journalists of the day pretended to objectivity but really were “marching like soldiers of the Lord to the New Frontier” — which is to say, marching for JFK and the liberal cause of the day.
In the clip with Soledad O’Brien and Christine O’Donnell, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien is shown by O’Donnell to be one of today’s leftist flag carriers ill-concealed as an “objective journalist.”
I spoke with Christine O’Donnell today. She was amused, and should be.
O’Donnell had caught a CNN anchor not just defending President Obama. She caught Soledad O’Brien unwittingly making a direct connection between communism and President Obama. Specifically a connection between Fidel Castro and Mr. Obama.
And who better to vouch for Ms. O’Donnell’s point than… Fidel’s buddy Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post — and President Obama himself?
Not to put too fine a point on it… but there is a reason Soledad O’Brien gets so jumpy when critics accuse the President of being a left-wing extremist.
Because they’re right.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/31/christine-odonnell-breitbarts
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Great Train Robbery
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Grant| 8.31.12 @ 5:37PM
The highlight was when Mrs. O'Donnell pointed out to Solenoid the problem with Government providing funds to the private sector.
Too bad she didn't call that for what it really is. And it's not communism. It's fascism.
Solenoid's going to have to do better than shaking papers in peoples faces to win arguments.
Well played Christine!
RJ| 8.31.12 @ 6:03PM
Thanks, Jeff for the entertaining video of Soledad making a fool of herself again. I gave up on watching CNN years ago, so I would have missed it, but for your blog. I was told that Ms. O'Donnell was a weak candidate in 2010, but she seemed to do well in this discussion. She is clearly much smarter than Old Joe Biden.
Finzi Holst| 9.1.12 @ 12:12AM
Actually, RJ, she was leading in the polls until the Establishment RINOs had a fit because the People did not follow their instructions and opted instead for a Tea Party candidate. She and Angle (Nevada) were both ahead until Rove, Krauthammer (the former Mondale shill) and Co had their very public tantrum. In essence the two ladies were thrown under the bus. And, typically, they torpedoed the two TP candidates then blamed the TP for costing the Republicans the Senate. That is why the sooner the Establishment RINOs are gone the better.
RJ| 9.1.12 @ 1:08AM
Thanks, I didn't know that O'Donnell was ever ahead in the polls over the Democrat. I do remember how members of the GOP "professional" class blasted her, which really got me angry. For many years, we have been expected to suffer through with RINOs "for the sake of beating the Democrats" and then, when things don't go their way, they quickly explode all over the citizen-selected GOP nominee. As I recall, Rove's candidate, Mike Castle was already making deals with Harry Reid as to which bills he could count for his support. If ever a RINO deserved to lose it was Castle. But I didn't know that O'Donnell was leading the Democratic nominee. It makes Rove and company all the more disgraceful.
Grzmlyk| 9.1.12 @ 11:46AM
I agree with you, Finzi. It boiled my blood to see the way the establishment - Rove in particular - dismissed O'Donnell so contemptuously. I thought she seemed like an extremely sincere, patriotic potential diamond in the rough, a real person from the ranks of real people. Yes, she needed seasoning, but didn't Rove and Krauthammer and the other GOP "sages" need seasoning as well when they were young and inexperienced?
The ridicule that came from our own people told me everything I need to know about the future of this country.
And if there were any doubt, the recent tarring and feathering of Todd Akin - not by Democrats, who sat back and enjoyed the show, but by Republicans, because he - heaven forfend - uttered a politically incorrect thought that he mangled to boot - literally sickened me.
I now understand that the rift between Republicans and Democrats is like professional wrestling - show biz, not real debate of ideas.
When the GOP establishment is ready - nay, eager - to jettison one of its own for crossing liberalism's line in the sand, do we doubt what the future holds?
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.31.12 @ 6:48PM
I believe nationalization of certain industries has always been on the Progressive agenda in America. In Europe it was called Fascism.
Bob K| 9.1.12 @ 1:56AM
John Lukacs has an interesting chapter on the 'Misuse And Misreading of "Fascism' in his historical essay, "Democracy and Populism Fear and Hatred." pp116-125. Yale Univ. Press 2005.
"Some time around 1931-1932 the usage of the term "National Socialism was forbidden in Soviet Russia, presumably on Stalin's orders. ..........
After that date, Russian references to Hitler or to National Socialists or to the Third Reich was allways to "Fascism" or "Hitlerites." In western Europe and in the United States this terminology was instantly and eagerly adopted by many journalists and political thinkers and historians--wrongly so."
"Stalin had good reasons to insist on this kind of terminology. National, instead of "international" socialism was more and more applicable to Stalin's Russia in the 1930s, ...........application of "Fascism" to all right-wing and anti-Communist parties and practices.......was very useful.....for left -wing rhetoric and practice." p. 117.
JimH| 9.1.12 @ 8:18AM
The Soviets tried to have it both ways. Marxism is supposed to be transnational. The workers of the world and all that. At the same time we have all the talk of the Motherland and WWII is the Great Patriotic War. Naziism had similarities to what went on in Spain and Italy, but was not identical.
Bob K| 9.1.12 @ 10:37AM
I would argue, if it were not a waste of time, that they all fall one under the one big idea of Socialism: Marxism, Communism, International Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, Stateism, whatever. But it is too late for that.
Lukacs also says at pp.116 and 117 as cited above:
"Either in its origins or in its development German National Socialism was not Fascist, whereas eventually Italian Fascism became more and more National Socialist. But before I come to this development, a word or so about the origin of the usage of the "fascist" term in the 1930's and thereafter----since the history of ideas (indeed, of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words."
I find his reference here to the history of ideas and human thought most thought provoking!
JimH| 9.2.12 @ 9:32AM
Yeah Bob, I think in current language Fascism is anything a leftist doesn't like.
Bob K| 9.2.12 @ 10:14AM
I have to agree. It's come to that. A thoughtless pejorative term.
Richard Lyle Prescott| 8.31.12 @ 11:10PM
It's interesting how two people can watch the same clip and come to two different conclusions. Soledad O'Brien did not, through her dogged questioning, reveal that Obama is a "left-wing extremist" - she revealed that she failed to get a sound bite out of Ms O'Donnell saying or agreeing to "Obama is a communist." Soledad tried to put those words in Christine's mouth and failed - that's all that happened. I thought O'Donnell handled herself very well amd O'Brien was foolish. (BTW, GM was never nationalized in the standard sense of the word e.g. the British Labour Party "nationlized" the railroads.)
Dai Alanye | 9.1.12 @ 7:36PM
The comparison between the GM takeover and British nationalization of the railroads (and other industries) is merely one of baby steps versus great strides. Give him time -- Obama will reach for full nationalization. Obamacare, as well, is simply the first step toward a national healthcare system and all that carries with it.
Communism, nationalization, "bailing out" and subsidizing industries, fascism, national socialism or socialism in general are nothing but degrees of the same phenomenon -- government control of the means of production, and the reduction or elimination of individual choice.
IX-XI| 9.3.12 @ 1:27PM
Soledad O'Brien's amusing lack of self-awareness makes me wonder if she realizes what she's taping is actually going to be seen by other people far smarter than she appears to be.
The fun thing about going in for an interview with Soledad is a John Sununu or other manipulative GOP SOB (and I say that, John, with the utmost admiration), can quickly push the poor girl's buttons and get her to take the bait, turning an interview into a debate and further exposing CNN's egregious bias while making a total monkey out of her.
Bless her heart.
spike59| 9.4.12 @ 6:15AM
when Sununu 'lights into' Solenoid, calling the result a 'debate' is a compliment to Solenoid; it more properly should be termed a 'hissy fit' on Solenoid's part.