Sign up for the Obama Action Wire

Stay up to date on right wing smears.

Take Action

Share the Facts

Copy the text below and paste it into your email.

Download a PDF version for printing.

Tell a Friend

Invite your friends to spread the truth about Barack. You can even import your contacts to make it easier. Don’t worry – we don’t hold on to any of the email addresses you share.

Who's behind the smears?

Find Out

Help Us Spread the Truth

Donate Now

The Truth About Barack Obama and the NewParty

Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.

But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.

This isn’t the first time Kurtz has ventured down this slippery slope he has a history of telling these kinds of unsubstantiated tall tales. Kurtz is on the record with the sexist and intolerant claim that the national nursing shortage is the “fault of feminism.” And here’s what the Chicago Tribune had to say about this “partisan attack dog:”

WGN-AM 720 host Milt Rosenberg erred Wednesday night when he had partisan attack dog Stanley Kurtz as his only guest for a two-hour show….Rosenberg, who is himself quite the partisan, tut-tutted right along with Kurtz. It all disguised that Kurtz really had nothing new to add to the insinuations and innuendo in the guilt-by-association portion of the campaign against Obama in which he’s actively engaged.”

Stanley Kurtz’s latest smear is just another attempt to drum up fears and plant conspiracy theories to slander Barack. Fight back with the truth make sure anyone who has seen this smear also sees this page.

96 OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: BARACK DID NOT SEEK NEW PARTY ENDORSEMENT

Carol Harwell: Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995. Carol Harwell was Obamas campaign manager for his 1996 bid for state senator. According to Ms. Harwell the Obama campaign did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement. [Conversation with Ms. Harwell on 6/11/08]


OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT AND HAS RUN AS A DEMOCRAT IN ALL SIX PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS


Obama Is A Democrat and Has Run in All of His Campaigns as a Democrat. On March 19, 1996, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 17, 1998, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 21, 2000, Obama lost the Democratic primary for Congress, representing the first district of Illinois. On March 19, 2002, Obama won the Democratic primary for the 13th district. On March 16, 2004, Obama was the Democratic primary for US Senate. In 2008, Obama won the Democratic primary for President of the United States. [Illinois State Board of Elections; Chicago Weekend, 3/24/1996; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections; Illinois State Board of Elections; CNN]

1996: Barack Obama (D) Won The Democratic Primary For Illinois State Senate District 13. “The political aftershocks of last weeks special 2nd Congressional District election still were being felt Monday when state Sen. Alice Palmer, who lost to U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. in the special Democratic primary, announced that she will seek re-election to the legislature. As the filing period for the March 19 primary closed Monday, Palmer faced a re-nomination challenge from a candidate of her own making, Chicago lawyer Barack Obama, whom then-congressional candidate Palmer had endorsed as her replacement in the Illinois Senate…Palmer had set the stage for her conflict last summer when she launched her congressional campaign and declared that she would forgo re-election for a second term in the state Senate; she endorsed Obama for the seat Sept. 19…Palmer said that she was backing Jackson, who filed Monday for the March primary, for re-election and that an outpouring of encouragement from her South Side legislative district led her to run for re-election…In addition to Obama, three other Democrats filed to challenge Palmer.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/18/1996]



THE NEW PARTY BACKED OBAMA ONCE

New Party Said That They Backed…Candidates; Only Backed Obama In 1996. Since it’s founding in 1992, the New Party chapters have backed 200 candidatesand 133 have won their races. Roughly half of our candidates are women; more than a third are people of color. According to a cache of their website, the New Party only backed Obama in 1996; Illinois: Danny Davis (U.S. House of Representatives, 1996, 1998), Miguel Del Valle (Illinois State Senate, 1998), Willie Delgado (Illinois State Legislature, 1998), Barack Obama (State Legislature, 1996), Michael Chandler (Chicago City Council, 1995), Patricia Martin (Cook County Judge, 1996). [New Party Archive, 2003]

KURTZ IS “PARTISAN ATTACK DOG” WHO IS “ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA”

Chicago Tribune Called Stanley Kurtz A “Partisan Attack Dog” Who Is “Actively Engaged” In The “Guilt-By-Association Campaign Against Obama.” On August 31, 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported, ”WGN-AM 720 host Milt Rosenberg erred Wednesday night when he had partisan attack dog Stanley Kurtz as his only guest for a two-hour show…. Rosenberg, who is himself quite the partisan, tut-tutted right along with Kurtz. It all disguised that Kurtz really had nothing new to add to the insinuations and innuendo in the guilt-by-association portion of the campaign against Obama in which he’s actively engaged.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/31/08]

  • Stanley Kurtz Is Tied To Bill Kristol’s Conservative Think Tank. Kurtz is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Policy Advisory Board includes: William Kristol. [Bio, policy advisory board, EPPC website, accessed 8/27/08]
  • Stanley Kurtz Was A Research Fellow At The Hoover Institution. In 2004, Stanley Kurtz was a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. [Boston Globe, 3/10/04]


KURTZ HAS A HISTORY OF MAKING BIZARRE, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS


Stanley Kurtz Claimed That Same Sex Marriage In Denmark Led To A Decline In Marriage Resulting In 60 Percent Of Children Being Born Out Of Wedlock. Stanley Kurtz stated: “Data from European demographers and statistical bureaus show that a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where the idea of same-sex registered partnerships is widely accepted, marriage itself has almost entirely disappeared. [Boston Globe, 3/10/04]

  • Analysis Of Statistics On Marriage In Scandinavia Was Debunked. “Kurtzs argument which OReilly embraces is that when legal rights are accorded to gays, through some unspecified process heterosexual couples begin bearing children out of wedlock and refuse to marry when they otherwise would. There are many government policies that alter the incentives to get and stay married, and thus have direct and unsurprising effects on marriage; for instance, the availability of no-fault divorce leads to more divorces, and laws providing the same rights for cohabitating heterosexual couples as married couples lead to fewer marriages, as couples make private commitments to each other without seeking the imprimatur of the state. But neither Kurtz nor OReilly has provided a plausible justification for their belief that extending rights to gay couples harms heterosexual marriage.” [Media Matters For America, 6/3/05]

Kurtz Claimed That The National Nursing Shortage Was The “Fault Of Feminism.” In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Back at National Review Online, contributing editor Stanley Kurtz makes the same point! He, too, says women shouldnt be trying to play by mens rules. Of course he has a slightly different take. According to Kurtz, the national nurse shortage is the fault of feminism, for bringing about the replacement of a traditional ethic of sacrifice by a post-60s ethos of self-fulfillment. Kurtz stated at the time Nursing was once built around a spirit of feminine compassion and sacrifice. In the new, feminist world, that is unacceptable.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/21/02]

Stanley Kurtz Stated That The Harvard Faculty No Confidence Vote In Lawrence Summers Would Cause “Lasting Damage To The Cultural Left.” On March 19, 2005, Stanley Kurtz stated on the National Review Online website, “I think the vote of no confidence in Lawrence Summers is a wonderful thing. Harvard continues to discredit itself with the American public. The faculty is trapped. If Summers resigns, this extraordinary example of political correctness will come back to haunt Harvard, and the entire academy, for years. But if Summers hangs on, the faculty itself will have been humiliated–checked by the very fact of public scrutiny. Either way, Harvard is tearing itself apart. So long as the public simply writes of the academy, the mice can play. But the intense public scrutiny in this case puts the captains of political correctness into a no-win situation. Like the closely watched Susan Estrich fiasco, this battle is doing lasting damage to the cultural left. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.” [National Review Online, 3/19/05]

Kurtz Argued That the Clash Between Middle East Family Life, Including the Islamic Sexual System, and Modernity Is Central to Understanding Terrorism. “But it is the clash between traditional Middle Eastern family life and modernity that has decisively pushed so many toward fundamentalism. And women are at the center of the problem. Although the puzzle of ‘modernity and the Muslim woman’ is one of several keys to this war, the feminist sensibility of the American press has rendered the connection between terrorism and the Islamic sexual system all but invisible.” [National Review, 2/28/02]

Kurtz Argued “Muslim Kinship Structure Is an Unexamined Key to the War on Terror.” “In this first in a series of essays on Muslim cousin-marriage, I want to begin to make the case that Muslim kinship structure is an unexamined key to the war on terror. While the character of Islam itself is unquestionably one of the critical forces driving our global conflict, the nature of Islamic kinship and social structure is at least as important a factor — although this latter cluster of issues has received relatively little attention in public debate. Understanding the role of Middle Eastern kinship and social structure in driving the war not only throws light on the weaknesses of arguments like D’Souza’s, it may also help us devise a new long-term strategy for victory in the war on terror.” [National Review, 2/15/07]

Kurtz Wrote that The Left Controls Key Levers and that Winning in Politics Is the Only Route for Conservatives to Exert Balancing Influence to Stop America from Becoming Like Europe. “Precisely because the left controls key levers of the culture, politics is the only real route to balance. America is not that far from sliding into the culture and politics of Europe, and so conservatives simply can’t afford a sweeping political loss right now.” [Kurtz Post, National Review Blog, 2/6/08]

Kurtz Wrote During the 2004 Election That There Was A Culture of Fear About Displaying Pro-Bush Signs and that Bush Supporters Put American Flags Up Instead. “There is a climate of fear. Again and again, Corner readers say theyve been scared off of posting bumper stickers by visions of having their cars keyed or their windows smashed… Are the fears justified? They seem to be… Many Bush supporters avoid the whole problem by adopting a flag strategy. American flags, yellow ribbons, and signs saying Support our troops function in many places as proxies for Bush-Cheney signs. One reader noted that none of the homes with Kerry signs on his street display American flags. Other readers say they intentionally use the flag as a proxy.” [National Review, 10/7/08]