Take action now:

Center for American Progress misleads about "progressive" label

One unremarked note about the topic of Hillary Clinton's weakness is that some of her minions, while effective, are also lightweights. Media Matters has been able to get a few of their smears into the wider sphere, but they've also damaged what little reputation they had by failing to contextualize or misinterpreting remarks.

Another example is the Center for American Progress, a group that can't seem to get anything right. A misleading study from them is at that link, and here's another from Meredith King, and some propaganda from Ruy Teixeira. And, via Senior Fellow Henry Fernandez, they have an indirect link to the Mexican government.

The latest example comes from television ads they're running in Columbus, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis and want to make nationwide. The ads attempt to "begin defining progressivism in the public's mind". Oddly enough, this coincides with Hillary Clinton now assuming the "progressive" label. You can see the ads here: thinkprogress.org/2007/11/14/progressive-and-proud

Summary: the Communist Party could run ads discussing only some of their policies - such as their environmental stance - and then tell people they might be Communists. [UPDATE: I did just that at the link.] For another example, see the "World's Smallest Political Quiz", something that usually informs people - surprise! - that they have libertarian leanings.

The ads fail to note that the rise of "professional administrators" also led to Democratic Machines and their associated corruption and a massive, inefficient, entrenched bureaucracy. They fail to note that some "progressives" such as Mike Gravel explicitly support the formation of a world government. They fail to note that few "progressive" leaders support the enforcement of our immigration laws.

They discuss Teddy Roosevelt's environmentalism, without noting that he would almost certainly be aghast at someone who doesn't support enforcing our borders. They fail to note the "progressive"/Gramscian role in unnecessary forms of affirmative action, speech codes, racial divisiveness used to obtain political power, racial demagoguery, and on and on. They fail to note that many "progressives" have a proclivity towards being useful idiots or collaborateurs. They fail to note that many "progressives" don't seem clear on the concept of free speech, with some engaged in Stalinesque attempts to silence those who disagree with them.

Due to those factors and more, today's "progressives" strongly differ from the ones depicted in the old footage on the videos. If they discussed everything that "progressive" means nowadays, many fewer people would be proud to wear that label.

Politics · Wed, 11/14/2007 - 11:54 · Importance: 1

Thu, 11/15/2007 - 03:05

"Progressive" means revolutionary advances toward totalitarianism. Are we there yet?