Critchlow: Obama, Democrats Worse Than Marxists

There’s a part of me that feels bad for the wingnuts, having to continually one-up their own inflated rhetoric to keep the folks in the pews scared enough to open their wallets. When you’ve claimed that health care reform is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, there’s not a lot of room after that. And since they’ve routinely called Obama and the Democrats “Marxists,” now they have to argue that they’re even worse than those cuddly old commies. Here’s Don Critchlow talking to Phyllis Schlafly:

Schlafly: When Barack Obama was running for President he bragged, he said that he wanted to ‘fundamentally transform America,’ what do you think he really wants to transform?

Critchlow: I think he wants to transform the way Americans live. I think what this transformation is is a clear cut agenda to extend the federal government into all parts of our lives. What’s happened, Phyllis, is that we’ve seen the steady erosion of real rights in America today. This is a very insidious agenda that has been imposed upon us and too many Americans are going along with it…

Critchlow: I think the takeover of the Democratic Party, the new progressives were not communists per se. The old communists, the old Marxists were concerned with issues of production. This is a much more radical agenda, actually, than what the old communists were talking about. The new progressives want to control consumption. That’s the point of takeover — that they want to control — it’s more insidious because they’re going to control the way we live as opposed to just nationalizing a few industries as the old socialists and communists wanted.

And remember, this is said to a woman who has been crusading against the consumption of pornography for decades. Bryan Fischer would be proud of this projection.


  1. slc1 says

    And remember, this is said to a woman who has been crusading against the consumption of pornography for decades. Bryan Fischer would be proud of this projection.

    And the same woman who proclaimed that a woman who jogs in a jogging bra and shorts is asking to be raped.

  2. pacal says

    More than two years on another forum I had a debate with a Tea Bagger who was saying that Obama was a Marxist. I said that that statement was a lie and that by uttering it he was a liar even if he didn’t know it. Well the rage filled spittle that followed was quite entertaining. In his response this guy said, I’m paraphrasing, “Well you can’t prove Obama isn’t a Marxist”. Which is of course the old you can’t prove a negative problem or “When did you stop beating your wife?”, sort of question. Oh and the guy was totallly clueless about what a Marxist is.

  3. Amphiox says

    It’s the standard right wing tactic of trying to turn legitimate criticism against them around by making up an imaginary equivalency to throw at the other side.

    When the Koch’s financial influence on the GOP was first coming to light, they did up George Soros.

    Now that everyone is talking about how the extremist tea party has taken over and hijacked the GOP, obviously there is some progressive “extremists” (worse than Marxists!) taking over the Dems.

  4. says

    Control consumption? What does that even mean?

    Seriously. You mean that he’s literally going to take bread out of babies’ mouths? Limit us to two pair of shoes per person (no flip flops)?

    The whole point of health insurance is to INCREASE CONSUMPTION of something good. That being preventive health services, along with curative health services when the need arises.

    What part of INCREASING the amount of people who have health insurance limits the consumption of health care services?

    Do these people even listen to themselves?

  5. John Hinkle says

    The new progressives want to control consumption.

    Hmm, that sounds suspiciously close to wanting to control access to birth control, reproductive rights, marriage equality…

  6. says


    Whenever a teabagger calls Obama a Marxist/communist/socialist, I immediately ask to define the word and then I list all of Obama’s policies that were originally thought up by republicans, including health care reform and the Dream Act. I then conclude with a request for a detailed explanation for how this makes him a Marxist/communist/socialist.

    In four years, not a single teabagger has replied to me.

  7. kermit. says

    Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort: I don’t think Wingnuts would know what a Marxist looks like if it bit them.

    I don’t think they could tell us what fascists are, nor would they fare any better distinguishing between Muslims and atheists.

    They cannot discern any boundaries nor characteristics except Our Tribe and Others. All nouns, verbs, and adjectives are in two sets of interchangeable members: good and ungood.

  8. dan4 says

    To Don Crtichlow (and anyone who agrees with his rant here), “Marxism”=any government policy I disagree with.”

  9. jnorris says

    Its true that President Obama wants to control consumption. He and the Liberals want to keep the dairy price supports that keep milk relatively cheap. They also want everyone to consume health insurance, have gays and lesbians consume marriage licenses with expensive clothing and cakes, and alternative energy. The bastards!

  10. se habla espol says

    Its true that President Obama wants to control consumption.

    He certainly wants to keep tuberculosis under control. How evil and Marxist — nay, even Progressive! — of him.
    (I’ve heard rumors that preview corrupts the html even worse than usual for links. The link, above, goes between ‘keep’ and ‘under’, if it comes out as goofy in the real stuff as it does in preview.)

  11. says

    #6: You can have my flip-flops when you pry them from my cold, dead toes.

    Rightwingnuts seem to disappear whenever they are asked for explanations, deifinitions, citations, or proof of any of their claims. Just like cockroaches when the lights go on.

  12. Akira MacKenzie says

    Hmm, that sounds suspiciously close to wanting to control access to birth control, reproductive rights, marriage equality…

    Ah, but they don’t see banning abortion and birth control or allowing those queer-mo-sexuals from marrying one another as “Big Government.” I certainly didn’t when I was a Republican.

    You see, maintaining law and order was supposed to be one of the “legitimate functions of government” that conservatives and libertarians love to ramble on about. Maintaining a huge, tough-as-nails, and gung-ho military armed with the latest, bleeding-edge, megadeath hardware, along with a draconian criminal justice system with plenty of unsympathetic, Dirty-Harry-esque cops on the street is all a part of maintaining that law and order. Of course, since nothing contributes to crime than a decaying “moral fabric,” it is well within the government’s purview to prevent such societal discord by censoring “dirty” books and movies, prohibiting drugs, and trying to regulate the sex lives of any and all American consenting adults.

    Meanwhile, people are supposed to hate gays and lesbians, execute the guilty, make women have the babies they conceive, believe that religion has a place in every aspect of society, etc. It’s natural. It’s the way God wants us to be. Therefore, to legislate against these things goes against the “normal” state of affairs, requiring people to act against what should come naturally and the only way they can do that is by tyrannical government force! Ergo, banning abortion is about “freedom” and “limited government” since it is what preserves traditional society, while legally protecting a woman’s reproductive it is a form of “Big Government” because it makes people do something that they traditionally would not do.

    At least that’s how it was explained to me.

Leave a Reply