March 5, 2005

WHO ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO HONOR, ROBERT TAFT?

KERRY'S HONOREE (Robert Novak, March 5, 2005, Townhall)

Sen. John Kerry is sponsoring a resolution honoring black activist W.E.B. Du Bois, who officially joined the Communist Party late in life after faithful support of the Soviet line in world affairs.

Du Bois praised Soviet dictator and mass murderer Joseph Stalin as "great" and "courageous" and defended Communist North Korea for its 1950 invasion of South Korea.


In fairness to the Senator, Du Bois was at least harmless. Can we really expect Democrats to stop honoring supporters of Stalin when their "greatest" leader, FDR, kept him in power and gave him half of Europe?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 5, 2005 8:54 AM
Comments

DuBois harmless? Harmless is it to incite whole races of citizens to treason?

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 5, 2005 9:10 AM

He'll get a lot of self-satisfied praise on the Boston, New York, Georgetown cocktail party circuit. That's what he lives for.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at March 5, 2005 11:03 AM

How stupid is David Hobson, the GOP sponsor of this resolution?

DuBois was not harmless because his nonsense permeated the civil rights movement, pushing out the far more effective and sensible approach of Booker T Washington. His was the kind of noxious crap imbibed by members of the Third World ruling classes at Oxbridge or the Ivy League which crippled those nations after the end of colonialism.

The GOP should take this on directly, should attack DuBois for being a Stalinist stooge and a racist lowlife, and force the Democrats to defend him.

Posted by: Bart at March 5, 2005 11:19 AM

If nothing else, it shows Kerry's use of DuBois during last year's election was not a campaign slip-up by some staffers and/or the senator in a pandering mode being unaware of his later admitted communist affiliations.

You can't be this wilfully obtuse if you're planning another presidential run in 2008 and don't really believe in what DuBois stood for down deep, because Kerry's had six months since the inital controversey to full vet the body of his writings. But the move makes sense if you're planning another presidentual run and want to co-opt Howard Dean's supporters in a race against Hillary, before Dean has a chance to reneg on his promise not to run and throws his hat into the ring.


Posted by: John at March 5, 2005 11:47 AM

Yup. Gotta get the loony bin wing of the party all tied up.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at March 5, 2005 1:17 PM

DuBois is a hero in Massachusetts. The University of Mass. Library is named for him.

Posted by: C. McD. at March 5, 2005 1:53 PM

"FDR, kept him in power and gave him half of Europe?"

No, Stalin had his own army, and was able to loot eastern and central Europe to finance it. Roosevelt was lucky to salvage Western Europe.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 5, 2005 2:33 PM

rs: we had a monopoly on the atom bomb and therefore could have dismantled the soviets tout suit.
roosevelt and truman and all their hired symps sold out europe to uncle joe.

Posted by: cjm at March 5, 2005 4:19 PM

cjm,

In 1945, we had no means of getting it to the Soviet Union, other than perhaps parcel post.

Posted by: Bart at March 5, 2005 5:11 PM

Bart:

that's still just as false as last week.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2005 5:42 PM

You believe we could have nuked Russia in 1945, I think that the Packers can still be competitive even if Brett Favre retires, we all need our delusions.

Posted by: Bart at March 5, 2005 5:54 PM

bart: too bad our b-29's only worked over water, and not over land :) the point is, we wouldn't have had to use them, we just had to let the russians know that if they didn't disarm then we would use the bombs.

Posted by: cjm at March 5, 2005 7:02 PM

The Russians lost 30 million soldiers and civilians, the notion of them losing another 30 million meant nothing to the leadership.

The Russians controlled the land we would have flown over, we controlled the water we did fly over. That makes all the difference.

Posted by: Bart at March 5, 2005 7:59 PM

We went over this in detail last week. I'm afraid we will have to leave Bart with his illusions on this, if no fact has intruded to date, none ever will.

Posted by: Bob at March 5, 2005 9:30 PM

Nukes? We didn't need no stinkin' nukes. Firebombing Moscow in August of 1945 would have settled things then and there. And what would Zhukov and Koniev done?

The issue with Stalin was that he was always more ruthless than any of his opponents or contemporaries. He never faced a determined adversary until 1947. From then, it was all downhill (even if Orrin thinks we were too nice).

Posted by: ratbert at March 5, 2005 9:50 PM

I suppose Kerry's next pick will be Alger Hiss (who must also be popular in MA), or maybe even Kim Philby (got to cover the international nuance thing).

Or he could cut to the chase and choose Suslov (or Beria).

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 5, 2005 10:39 PM

yes, the point is to demolish the leadership.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2005 10:58 PM

Thomas Sowell once wrote that, as a teenager, he worked as a delivery boy and frequently was sent to the Du Bois mansion. He always had to deliver goods through a back entrance, because Du Bois was always quite insistent that he never be seen around the riffraff.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 6, 2005 2:37 AM

The best and the brightest, The Lincoln brigade, will be next to be honored.

Posted by: Genecis at March 6, 2005 2:05 PM
« "I DOUBLE-DOG DARE YOU" (Via WatchingAmerica.com) | Main | OBLIGATORY MULLAH REFERENCE: »