Archives prove Obama was a New Party member

[Christians4LessGvt]

Archives prove Obama was a New Party member

Oct 8, 2008

By Thomas Lifson

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, explained fusion in a Human Events article:

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.  "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 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.

J. Brown of Politically Drunk on Power has dug up multiple documentary sources (with hyperlinks) proving that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party, despite alleged attempts to cover up his tracks by scrubbing evidence. He or she deserves tremendous praise for doing this detective work.

Obama's career bears many signs of being helped along by the radical left.  At the critical moment when he entered electoral politics, he was part of a movement to take over an established political party and direct it to the task of building a socialist America.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is meaningless.

The Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota frequently allied itself with the Democratic Party in Minnesota in some areas and ran against it in others.

In New York, there were four parties: The Liberals, frequently allied with the Democrats, and the Conservatives, frequently allied with the Republicans.

In Wisconsin, the Progressive Party has allied itself with Democrats and Republicans. This is part of American tradition.

To REpublicans these days, everything to the left of Ghengis Khan is the "far left".
Unless it's deficit spending, snooping on everyone and allowing the rape and polluting of public lands.

The New Party was short-lived and ineffective.

[Michael Tee]

I am assuming that what the Supreme Court found objectionable was the idea of one man being the candidate of two parties.  In other words, be a Democrat and a member of the NRA - - fine.  Democrat and member of RCC - - fine.  Democrat and member of Steelworkers' Union - - fine.  Democrat and member of another political party - - fine.  Democratic Party candidate and candidate for the same office of another party - - uh-uh.  I think I can see the logic of the Court's decision.

What I don't get is whether Obama is being criticized for participating in the type of strategy described, i.e. for being an innovator or early adopter?  or just for being a "leftist?"

[Amianthus]

The Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota frequently allied itself with the Democratic Party in Minnesota in some areas and ran against it in others.

It is part of the Democratic party in Minnesota. Matter of fact, the official party name is "Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party" or DFL. It is the only state where the Democratic party is not called just "Democrats".

[Xavier_Onassis]

There was a time when the FL Party did not always endorse Democratic candidates and ran their own separately. This was in the 30's through the 50's.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is allowed for two parties to endorse the same candidate, and this has been done many times. I imagine that if a state law is passed against it, then the Supreme Court would have to decide on the legality of the state law. The verdict quoted said that there was no Constitutional right, which is true. political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution at all.