With this New Party – Obama association coming to light, the word “socialism” is coming up.  In my earlier post, I called the party socialist, not Obama.  But many sites have.  And some are upset about it.  I, however, am worried about it.

M-W.com defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”  Now, we’ve already taken ourselves closer to ”collectivism” recently.  We bought an 80% stake in AIG and put our own people in to run it.  We’re buying “bad paper” from other companies with some sort of unknown stake in them as well.  We’ll own real estate loans and securities from all over.  If that’s not quasi-socialism, I don’t know what is.

During the debate, Obama said fair / unfair a couple of times.  That SCARES me.  That is moving toward socialism, but the words resonate with the masses.  That’s the point Mr. Moran makes in the story I linked earlier.  Obama will say whatever it takes to get elected. 

But, I’m not sure that Obama’s void of any ideology.  If his sights were set so high, he HAD to know that these associations would be questioned and observed.  He couldn’t count on the media being so enamored by him.  I just can’t believe he didn’t share some of these radical ideas that Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, ACORN, and New Party had.  His shift in words from the primaries to now shows he’s willing to do what it takes to get elected, but it doesn’t prove he’s not radical.

Right now, the country is in dire straits, and Obama would make it worse.  He’s lying to people and making them believe he will give them money and health care and make life fair.  There’s NO WAY he can keep those promises, but they would follow him to the ends of the earth.  Sounds a little collectivist to me.