By Paul Kengor
July 18, 2012
The intrepid New York Times stoically took up the task of considering whether its president, Barack Obama, is a socialist or a communist. Pause right there: anyone familiar with the Times knows how that process would unfold. Namely, the Times would find someone with some credibility on the issue to provide -- surprise! -- an answer in the negative. Obama a socialist or communist? Come on! Never!
True to form -- that is, the form of a transparently biased leftist organ masquerading as an objective news source -- the Times found Milos Forman, a Czech émigré who long ago came to Hollywood to make movies. Forman's answer? Again, a shocker: Obama is not a socialist or a communist. Thus satisfied, the Times faithful gave their assent. Ah, it is gospel truth, amen.
The analysis offered by Forman was so specious that I will not bother detailing it here. My fellow Cold War researcher, Ron Radosh, God bless him, accepted the painful task. You can read Radosh's spot-on analysis in PJ Media.
In short, this is why I quit reading the New York Times. I can't stand the dishonesty. And to know that so many liberals digest it like their daily bread, with unquestioning devotion, makes it too much to endure. I, for one, will not subject myself to the duping.
But back to the basic question: is Obama a socialist or a communist?