Journalist Steve Leser: "Republicans have no Clue what Socialism and Communism means"

[Bonobo]

Compare this OP below with the below article by the same person, Steven Leser, journalist, from March, 2009.

Am I the only one that sees just a bit of hypocrisy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=576960

---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Republicans-have-no-Clue-w-by-Steven-Leser-090308-590.html
Republicans have no Clue what Socialism and Communism means
By Steven Leser (about the author)

I return periodically to the topic of how the right wing in America is murdering the English language, one word at a time. For instance, if you listen to them, you will find out that the words "appeasement" or "appeaser" are applied anytime a politician advocates any solution to an international disagreement other than a full military assault on the country with whom we have a disagreement.

The latest lexical victims are "Socialism" and "Communism". The Republican and Conservative right in America now liberally apply these words to anyone who is center and center left, including all Democrats and President Barack Obama. You can see/hear this happen with regularity on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and on the website Free Republic www.freerepublic.com . In fact, the owner of Free Republic recently issued a missive warning the site's members to stop writing posts threatening President Obama and said missive was laced with proclamations that Obama is a Communist or Communist sympathizer.

Here is a generous hint to my feebleminded right wing friends. It is impossible to be a Socialist or a Communist if one is not calling for the nationalization of entire industries. Now, I used a lot of big words there that right wingers reading this may not understand, so I will make my hint even easier to comprehend (note: comprehend means "understand&quot . If a government or a leader of a government is not taking over complete ownership and control of every business that has a certain function (i.e. does similar things), then you do not have a government or government leader that is Socialist or Communist. There is a similar relationship with property rights. If a government or leader is not advocating or actively taking private property rights away from people, you don’t have a Socialist or Communist government or leader.

I realize that most of this is going to be ignored by many of those at whom this is directed, but they should consider this. The irony of what the conservative right is doing with regard to terms like appeasement and Socialism and Communism is that they are using the words so often and so inappropriately that they are going to take any kind of stigma away from them. Obama is probably going to improve relations with Russia, China and Iran. People are probably going to like the effects of this. If Right wingers call this "appeasement" then calling anything in the future "appeasement" is going to stop having a negative connotation. Similarly, if Obama's economic policies work, and I think they are, if they are termed "Socialism" or "Communism" then the next time people call someone's policies Socialism or Communism, it wont cause such a stir. THAT could be extremely destructive if it turns out that someone is really appeasing another country or taking us down the road to collectivism.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Just a "bit"? Time for a calibration.

[Bonobo]

4. Does that thing go to 11? nt

[VulgarPoet]

32. Mine exploded this morning, pls stop trying to piss on its shattered remains.

[mhatrw]

2. no, we all see it.

even steven

[Bonobo]

3. Weird considering all that hot air, that he never tried to disabuse anyone here of the illegitimate

attacks on Sanders for being a so-called "socialist".

I thought he considered himself a good journalist. I wonder how he even defines the word "journalist".

[Voice for Peace]

30. Hypothetically one might see a journalist,

when looking in a mirror, while others see a vain & arrogant poser. Poser not poster.

[joshcryer]

5. He's not wrong in the classical sense about socialism (and GOP knowledge).

But as is usual with fictionalists, inventing terms and narratives works well. For Steven, mentioning socialism as a modern vague concept is not incorrect, as the Gallup poll shows. But for the person Steven is mentioning, his socialism is not classical, as he has made clear repeatedly. He's a democratic socialist and approves of trade in a global economy as long as it doesn't hurt American workers. Sanders is not an isolationist.

Whether the people polled by Gallup know or care to differentiate is largely irrelevant, as the person Steven refers to has done quite well making his policy positions known. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely we'll actually know whether Steven's implication is correct, given the process so far.

The GE will not have a socialist on the ticket (though it'll likely have an isolationist nationalist fascist, which unfortunately Gallup doesn't poll for).

[jfern]

6. Bernie has 58% in 2 recent polls against Trump

So I guess only 58% of Americans will vote for a 75 year old Jewish democratic socialist. Oh well.

[Bonobo]

7. jfern, your post nails it. nt

[joshcryer]

9. Unfortunately, Sanders is 19.5% behind.

In pledged delegates.

[jfern]

11. We weren't talking about the primary, and your numbers are out of date

[joshcryer]

12. I checked my numbers twice literally before posting.

Feel free to correct. Was I off by a tenth because I rounded?

[jfern]

13. You're way off

Hillary has 32.16% of pledged delegates and Bernie has 26.83%.

[joshcryer]

14. 1,030/1,280*-1 = -0.1953125 = 19.5% behind.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=democratic+primary+pledged+delegates

[jfern]

15. Yeah, that's now how you do the math

And those delegate numbers are wrong

[joshcryer]

16. Feel free to insert your best numbers.

That's the way math works.

[jfern]

17. Here

Hillary has 1303, Bernie 1087
That's a lead of 216 out of 2390, or 9.04%

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[joshcryer]

18. 16.5% behind.

Make you feel better?

[jfern]

19. LOL, just 9% behind

[joshcryer]

20. Would it be.

[jfern]

21. I already showed you the math

[joshcryer]

22. And I wished I believed it and it was true.

Truly. That'd be far better than the reality.

[jfern]

23. Here it is with slightly more detail

difference / sum = (1303-1087) / (1303+1087) = 216/2390 = 9%

[joshcryer]

24. Neither candidate is getting majority pledged, just like 2008.

You should know this.

[jfern]

25. Of course you can get a majority of the pledge delegates

[joshcryer]

28. Pledged is all that matters.

As 2008 set the precedent, with the loser conceding by a mere 62 pledged delegates.

[amborin]

35. +10000

[Capt. Obvious]

8. You should fix your title

"Journalist" Steve Leser

[joshcryer]

10. I am on the record liking and defending Steven.

But your nickname is for once apt.

Not a fan of pundits, and I'm not intending the pile on he's receiving lately (for no reason than a distraction, imo), just saying.

[DanTex]

26. What, is it "bash Steve" day today?

There's no hypocrisy there whatsoever. Yes, the GOP grossly abuses the term "socialist."

Also, nominating a self-described socialist who sticks up for Castro, honeymooned in Russia, and has advocated public ownership of the means of production earlier in his political career is a recipe for disaster.

[joshcryer]

29. Probably.

I do consider Steven a pundit, though, and he knows well that I don't take pundits seriously. I think the whole pile on is a distraction, in an attempt to shift the focus of discussion. Note: I don't think it's intentional, I think people are simply grasping at whatever they can to distract, knowingly or not.

[ucrdem]

27. Lord of the Flies fail. nt

[QC]

31. Quiet, you!

In my day people had more respect for hot, in-demand national pundits!

[artislife]

33. Hee

Those were the days when they actually reported the news and weren't "personalities". What a sad way to make a living these days, basically just selling your brand.

The personalities on ET have more integrity about reporting on their subjects than most of all the other pundits in the "news" media.

[VulgarPoet]

34. Calling him a "journalist" is a stretch.

Journalists are supposed to have at least a mote of integrity.