Democrats And Socialists – A Distinction Without A Difference

Sometimes what’s not said in response to a direct inquiry is more noteworthy than what is said. When the chairman of the Democrat National Committee was asked recently what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was, she sidestepped the issue and went a totally divergent direction. It would have provided a valuable service if she’d answered the question directly; for there seems to be no substantive distinction.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The DNC chairman started to laugh, so Matthews tried again. “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think?” Wasserman-Schultz started to sidestep the issue again, so Matthews tried a third time. “Yeah, but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.” Intentionally avoiding Matthew’s question, she responded, “The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican.” Her dogmatically superficial and fallacious explication ensued.

A little later, NBC’s Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked the same question, which she responded to very similarly, choosing to answer a question not asked. But when the Matthews interview is looked at contextually, she may have already answered the question when she called Bernie Sanders “a good Democrat.”

That’s a significant statement even at face value; for Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont and a Democrat candidate for president, is a self-avowed socialist. He’s officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them 98% of the time, according to Socialistworker.org.

The significance increases further when Sanders’ burgeoning popularity in the Democrat presidential polls is analyzed. Having started out in single-digit support just two months ago, Sanders has significantly reduced frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s lead. In Sanders’ neighboring state of New Hampshire, one of the early voting states, Sanders now leads Clinton by 7%. Considering only 38% of Americans feel Clinton is “trustworthy,” it’s surprising the former Secretary of State has any lead in any polls, anywhere.

Sanders is attracting larger campaign crowds than any of the other presidential candidates. Last week, he attracted nearly 28,000 in Los Angeles, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and over 15,000 in Seattle.

When looking at his proposals, it’s difficult to identify any substantive differences from mainstream Democrat Party doctrine. Sanders is pushing for universal single-payer health care; supports redistribution of wealth; advocates “free” college; fosters an antipathy toward corporations and “big business”; wants military spending cut by 50%; opposes natural resource development for energy; advocates government control and solutions for all economic or cultural challenges; and emphasizes egalitarianism rather than merit and achievement.

These tenets fit comfortably under the socialist umbrella, which, in general terms, is “An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. While capitalism is based on a price system, profit and loss and private property rights, socialism is based on bureaucratic central planning and collective ownership,” according to Investopedia.

There are some distinctions that should be made, however. The American variety of socialism (liberalism and progressivism) has a democratic component that doesn’t require a revolution, as many of the European and Asian models featured, but rather relies upon a democratic vote to incorporate. This necessitates the means to organize communities and proliferate propaganda, in order to effect electoral change. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals rose in direct response to that need, as a playbook for societal polarization and proliferation of socialist objectives. And perhaps not coincidentally, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the Alinsky model; and President Obama taught it as a community organizer and has implemented it to perfection nationally.

Jason Riley, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: “Mr. Sanders’s socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda.”

Founded in individual liberty, America has always been the one nation under heaven where equality of opportunity has taken precedence over equality of outcome. The whole concept of the “American Dream” is based on the individual freedom to become, to achieve, to build, sell, and succeed. This requires individual freedom (which is diminished proportionate to expanded governmental power) and a free market economy (not centralized planning, or government control over the means of production). Consequently, socialism is philosophically, morally, and pragmatically antithetical to American values. Deductively, it is clearly anti-American.

Which brings us back to the chairman of the DNC. With the apparent inability to make any substantive distinction between the major tenets of socialism and the contemporary Democrat Party, it’s perfectly understandable that Wasserman-Shultz would not attempt to note any contradistinction. For as Riley observed in his WSJ piece, “These days, it’s largely a distinction without a difference.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Stunned MSNBC Host Can’t Even Tell The Time After Carly Cleans His Clock

In the early Republican presidential debate on Thursday — the one dubbed by some as the “happy hour” debate or the pre-game show at the “kids’ table” — there was one candidate of the seven on the Fox News stage who was singled out by many observers and analysts as the clear winner. That contender was the lone woman in the GOP group — the presidential hopeful who’s said to be very impressive in person on the campaign trail, but who hasn’t yet managed to show well in national polling — the former head of HP, Carly Fiorina.

While all seven of the so-called “lower tier” candidates handled themselves well and could be credited with respectable showings, it was Fiorina who dazzled the pundits and the people with her clear-eyed confidence and quick command of the issues. Analysts praised her performance after the 5 p.m. debate and social media was abuzz — some might say ablaze — with kudos for Carly.

A post on HotAir described the tweet-astic response to Fiorina’s masterful showing by noting that “conservative Twitter’s in the grip of a full-blown case of Carlymania as I write this.”

Outside the Cleveland auditorium where the debate was held on Thursday, Fiorina took a few moments to speak with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, host of Hardball. In the space of less than four minutes, Carly knocked it out of the park as she explained in no uncertain terms why she calls Hillary Clinton a liar. Matthews tried to defend the Democrat front-runner for the party’s 2016 nod, but Fiorina aptly demonstrated why she was declared the champ in the “happy hour” debate as she took Hillary apart, point by point.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the segment that left the lefty Chris Matthews so stunned. Many political analysts are now predicting Carly Fiorina will move up to the “adults’ table” in future GOP debates.

What do you think? Did Carly Fiorina walk away — or even run away — with the first GOP debate Thursday?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward…

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s face began to turn the color of her dress when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews threw her off-script, busted her for trying to spout tired talking points, and insisted that she answer a question that put her in an awkward spot for which she obviously wasn’t prepared.

Wasserman-Schultz, the Florida representative who serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was pressed by the clearly frustrated host of Hardball to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. The discussion on Thursday night’s show related to Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who’s gaining traction in his challenge to Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 nomination for president.

As TheBlaze notes in its coverage of the tense exchange: “Matthews first began questioning Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) on whether presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist, would be given a slot on primetime to speak at the Democratic National Convention.”

Matthews kept after Wasserman-Schultz until she finally blurted out an answer – you’d have thought he had a GOP spokesperson on the hot seat. But then the interview came close to going off the rails entirely when Matthews — a long-time Democrat loyalist who used to be chief of staff for House Speaker Tip O’Neill — insisted on getting an answer to his question:

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?

That’s when Debbie tried to play dodgeball on the show called Hardball. By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the interview took on a decidedly downhill course.

What do you think the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

MSNBC Has Just Done Something HUGE That Will Have Fox News Fans On Their Feet

The far-left cable news-and-views operation that has desperately tried to brand itself as the “Lean Forward” network is now in an undeniable “lean backward” posture, dumping a number of its progressive talk shows in favor of more hard, straight news coverage. MSNBC is, by some accounts, waving the white flag of surrender, largely giving up on its non-stop, ultra-liberal program lineup.

Network officials have not formally announced all the dramatic changes that promise to reshape the media home of Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and others who regularly preach the liberal gospel in support of Barack Obama and his political apostles. However, sources quoted by several news industry watchdogs point to a massive shakeup in a program schedule that has sunk MSNBC into a ratings depression so deep it could be called a near-death experience.

Western Journalism has previously reported how audience ratings for the flailing cable net have been sinking lower and lower. In April, MSNBC’s parent company, Comcast, pulled the plug on a proposed merger with Time Warner Cable, casting doubt on the future of the network constantly struggling to compete in any respectable way against the Fox News Channel.

Once the telecom giants abandoned their expensive effort to grease the Washington skids to try to win official approval of their plan to combine forces, Comcast and MSNBC brass took a long, hard look at the viability of the far-left net that viewers have been abandoning in droves.

Now, in an exclusive report, Mediaite says that MSNBC is on the verge of big changes that would arguably represent “the most significant revamp the network has made at one time in its 19-year history.”

According to an inside source that reportedly spoke with Mediaite, you can wave bye-bye to several progressive talk shows: “Out: The Cycle at 3:00 PM. Now with Alex Wagner at 4:00 PM. The Ed Show with Ed Schultz at 5:00 PM (all times eastern).”

So what will replace these soon-disappeared afternoon MSNBC programs that constantly stirred the pot and proclaimed the virtues of liberal politics and progressive causes? News shows, that’s what.

The Host of NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, will reportedly return to MSNBC with a weekday program. Then there’s the disgraced former anchor of the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams, who will soon be an MSNBC regular, presumably because cable watchers don’t expect or demand all that much integrity.

As for other faces you’ll see either come or go from the ratings-toilet-dwelling cable network, Mediaite also says that (are you ready for this?) Keith Olbermann could be coming back.

Possibly heading for the exit along with Alex Wagner, Ed Schultz and The Cycle panel could be Chris Hayes and, yes, even Al Sharpton. Previous MSNBC anchors Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid have already ridden into the media sunset.

And in case you’re crossing your fingers, hoping that Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews might be getting pink slips, sources say that’s unlikely.

MSNBC boss Andy Lack is supposedly planning a “town hall” any day now to make official the changes that will return the network to its 1990s roots as a more straightforward news operation, not a “Lean Forward” hotbed of top-to-bottom political talk and liberal advocacy.

Western Journalism will update this post as further details on the program changes at MSNBC become available.

What do you think of the changes being made at MSNBC? Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

MSNBC Host Makes SCOTUS Claim – Ted Cruz Stops Him Dead In His Tracks With These Two Questions

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz has received some recent flak for suggesting U.S. Supreme Court justices should be forced to win elections in order to retain what are constitutionally lifetime appointments. He was called to task on his stance by MSNBC host Chris Matthews Wednesday.

“You’ve always been pro-Supreme Court,” the Hardball host said, “until now.”

Matthews went on to ask how Cruz could suggest forcing justices to behave like politicans.

“I am reluctant to call for retention elections,” Cruz acknowledged, “but I have done it because I believe a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Based on recent decisions on healthcare and gay marriage, Cruz determined that the high court appears poised to address “every major policy issue in this country.”

Matthews chimed in, wondering why Cruz celebrated when the Supreme Court “sized the presidency in 2000” by nixing additional ballot recounts in Florida and declaring George W. Bush the winner.

“If there was ever a case of partisanship or ideology getting out of hand,” he asserted, “it was 2000 – and you loved it.”

Cruz shot back, explaining that Matthews recited some “great talking points” but offered a misleading analysis of the opinion.

“How many times did they count the ballots in Florida?” he asked.

“Four,” Matthews admitted.

“How many times did Bush win?”

“Four times.”

Matthews argued that Cruz’s defense of the 10th Amendment should lead him to support Florida’s right to continue recounting the ballots.

“The Democrats’ strategy,” Cruz concluded, “was to keep counting and counting and counting and counting – and eventually, maybe enough people will cheat and somehow our guy will win.”

Should Supreme Court justices be required to campaign for their seats? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth