Reid: Get Tea Partiers Dictionaries So They Can Look Up 'Socialism'

[cal04]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/reid-get-tea-partiers-dictionaries-so-they-can-look-up-socialism.php
email at link

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has a new fundraising e-mail out, making light of the Tea Party rally that was held this past weekend in his small hometown of Searchlight, Nevada. In particular, Reid challenges the Tea Partiers basic political knowledge, insofar as they call Democrats "socialists."

"I double checked the definition of 'socialism,' and it's defined as a political philosophy that advocates for government ownership of private industry. Absolutely needless to say, not a view I agree with in the least," Reid writes.

"My first thought was that we could hold a fundraising drive to buy dictionaries for all these folks and mail them out lickity split. But my campaign manager rightly pointed out that with the first quarter coming to an end, we should raise money for the campaign in dictionary-sized increments instead."

[FBaggins]

1. Wouldn't this sell better...

...AFTER we spin off our ownership of two major auto producers and a whole slew of banks?

[sandnsea]

2. Not really

Most of the banks already paid back their loans, and this isn't the first time we've bailed out a car company.

Regardless, this is a far far cry from socialist ownership of business and anybody who uses that argument is just a stupid fool.

[denbot]

3. So what auto producers does the U.S. own? Which banks are owned by the Federal Government?

Your opinion sells better on "other" boards.

[FBaggins]

6. Are you serious?

Do we not own a majority stake in GM? Is Chrysler not now government/labor owned?

Was there not a story just today about selling our stake in Citigroup in what could be the largest public offering in history?

Can you say AIG? Fannie? Freddie?

I'm just saying that the topic is too nuanced for this kind of a statement. It's too easy to spin the other way, because:

1) Socialism is public ownership and/or control of the means of production, and there's clearly more of that today than there was three years ago and,

2) Plenty of democrats have no problem with the label "socialism"... so why insult them by accepting the premise of the question?

[demosincebirth]

11. Can't we just bash 'em, just for the sake of it. Why have you survived so long on DU?

[denbot]

12. Yes I am serious.

What is the total ownership of preferred outstanding stock by the U.S. of GM? What is the total percentage of outstanding common stock owned by the U.S.? Who gives a fuck what union membership owns?

Unless you feel that unions are not worthy of owning a share of the company they produce goods and services for..

What is the break down of the percentage that is U.S. owned, regarding preferred and common outstanding stocks in the few remaining banking corps?
Back up you bullshit.

[FBaggins]

17. Sigh... I don't think that you get what I'm saying.

Who gives a fuck what union membership owns?

Unless you feel that unions are not worthy of owning a share of the company they produce goods and services for..

I certainly don't have a problem with it. That isn't what I'm saying. The point is that ownership by government or directly by the workers is "socialism". You're accepting the RW spin that this means that there's something wrong with it. You don't understand that your position is reflexively accepting of the union ownership (good)... but just as reflexively rejecting the label (bad). A schizophrenic position to be sure.

What is the total ownership of preferred outstanding stock by the U.S. of GM? What is the total percentage of outstanding common stock owned by the U.S.?

IIRC, it will be 60%+ after GM pays back billions in loans.


the few remaining banking corps?

Did you not read the post you replied to? We own essentially 100% of AIG, Freddie, and Fannie. These are massive financial institutions. Our Citi ownership is not a majority position, but will STILL result in the world's largest stock offering when we sell our stake.

[izzybeans]

8. When the douchebags who ran those companies into the ground apologize for their incompetence

then we'll be the adult ones and apologize that our socializing their industries where the only way to keep them afloat. K? But then again our apology should be rhetorical. Sometimes you gotta do what needs to be done when others have failed.

[FBaggins]

9. Not an unreasonable position.

Just not something you would put into a political ad. :-)

[izzybeans]

10. .

:rofl:

Yeah I wouldn't be a good strategist, unless I was writing copy for Grayson or someone like that. "Why vote for me? Because my opponent is fucking stupid. That's why. Got it."

[Bobbie Jo]

4. Start here:

[SocialistLez]

16. +1

Thanks for the laughs.

I actually checked out a book about FDR that's meant for juveniles and I love how it talks about socialism, an honest definition of it. =]

[DCKit]

5. Harry's been emboldened. I'd never noticed he had a sense of humor. n/t

[laughingliberal]

13. He does.

I like when he said he wanted to thank the teabaggers for coming in to spend all their out of state money here.

[kestrel91316]

7. No point, Harry. They're all functionally illiterate.

[KonaKane]

14. Let's all take little pocket dictionaries to the bagger rallies

And wave them in the air like the idiots did with flipflops during John Kerry's campaign for pres.

[ThoughtCriminal]

15. If nothing else they could use them...

to spell-check signs. Seems to be a problem even with the pre-printed protest signs they carry.