'Wage Class War' exposure elicits leftist attack

By Brenda J. Elliott

Only the radical left can distort truth into an alternate reality.

Richard Eskow, a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future think tank, engaged in a kitchen sink strategy of attack on World Net Daily to defend his organization’s recently-launched Wage Class War website which, Eskew claims, “documents 2012’s successful class-based political campaigns and promotes this winning strategy in future elections.”

Eskow’s diatribe against WND continues for nineteen paragraphs before he gets around to slamming Aaron Klein, the author of the WND article about the Wage Class War website:

WorldNetDaily’s Aaron Klein approvingly quotes Discover the Networks in his attack on CAF. He also thinks it’s quite damning that at some time or another CAF was connected with an organization that was connected to … George Soros. But then, Klein’s written a book called The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists. Enough said.

Aaron Klein and I, by the way, not only co-authored the thoroughly-documented Manchurian President but also Red Army and Fool Me Twice.

However, what is more important and appears to have gotten lost in Eskow’s rant is the basis for his defense of the Wage Class War premise, “Very large majorities — including most Republicans — want higher taxes for millionaires and reject tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.”

Eskow claims as evidence a November 6/7 post-election document purporting to be based upon a poll of both Democrat and Republican voters. The results indicate that voters were pretty much in agreement on all issues put to them regarding post-election taxing and spending priorities. In fact, voters almost perfectly mirror the progressive viewpoint.

However, a bit of research located the actual Frequency Questionnaire conducted November 6/7 by the research and strategic consulting firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. The firm counts a plethora of Democrat organizations and politicians among its clients. CAF’s so-called poll was conducted on behalf of CAF and Democracy Corps, both GQR clients found listed under “Advocacy” on its website along with several unions and progressive groups such as the Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, MoveOn.org, and USAction.

The questionnaire, however, is curious in several aspects.

Firstly, there is no analysis or explanation of the methodology for the information gathering. The number of participants is unclear. In one location it is stated it included “1012 presidential voters”. This is perhaps nothing more than a typo and should have read “2012 presidential voters”.

That said, some questions specifically state 245 respondents and others cite 506. The actual responses to the majority of the questions imply that the total was most often no more than 100.

This is supported in Question 2, which is listed near the end of questionnaire. It reports there were 47 males and 53 females. Question 114 has the racial breakdown: White 72, African-American or Black 13, Hispanic or Latino 10, Native American 1, Asian 1, Other 2, and “Don’t know/Refused”.

Compare this to the July 2007 population percentages: White 79.96, Black 12.85, Asian 4.43, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, and two or more races 1.61. Note that Hispanic or Latino is not cited separately because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic “to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic.”

The actual number of Hispanics or Latinos cannot be known. How many respondents self-identified as “White”?

Question 104 provides a political party breakdown of the respondents; in general terms, they are 38 Democrat (strong, weak, and leaning), 32 Republican (strong, weak, and leaning), and 29 Independent (leaning Democrat, leaning Republican, or just Independent). We can conclude 47 identified themselves in one way or another as pro-Democrat, 44 as pro-Republican, and 8 as Independents–plus one who did not know or refused to respond.

Question 107 addresses political leaning thusly: Liberal 25, Moderate 30, and Conservative 42, while 3 did not know or refused to respond. It is fuzzy as to what a political “moderate” is.

Question 108 is about religious affiliation. For whatever reason, whoever compiled the questionnaire data categorizes Catholics and Christians as two distinct voting groups, i.e. they are not all Christians.

It also becomes clear, based on the irregularity suggested by the number of respondents, that this is a quickly cobbled together report. Additionally, some questions and responses are not provided at all. Out of the enumerated 114 questions asked, several are missing. Could it be that these did not provide positive results for Barack Obama or the liberal agenda?

Also, it is clear that the taxing the wealthy and spending results Eskew and CAF/Democracy Corps cite come from a single section of the questionnaire, questions 72 through 76. Clearly stated with this information is that there were 506 respondents for these questions.

Eskow apparently uses this as the basis for his claim that the majority, including Republicans, wants “higher taxes for millionaires and reject tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.”

The 506 respondents asked to choose between the following statements agreed with the first statement 51% to 41%.

The wealthiest have used tax breaks and loopholes to pay lower tax rates than middle class families. Any new plan to address the deficit should start by closing corporate loopholes and raising taxes for those at the top. A deficit plan should not include cuts in Medicare or Social Security.


Everybody has to be willing to pay in order to get a long-term deficit reduction plan that will help America take off again. That means closing tax loopholes to raise more revenue, but also getting entitlement spending under control, including reducing the growth of Social Security and Medicare.

Nowhere, of course, is there any indication that respondents questioned the statements fed to them.

Who, by the way, is “everybody”? Not to put too fine a point on it, but “everybody” and cutting or reducing “entitlement spending” delivered a clear message that “everybody” was not going to be willing to agree to that false choice.

Lastly, Eskow closes with a not-so-veiled threat:

I, Radical

If it’s radical to support the American majority, consider me a proud radical. If it’s radical to defend important and successful social programs, and to work to make them even stronger, count me in.

And if it’s class war to defend ordinary Americans from Wall Street greed and corporate criminality, or to fight for a society where everyone has a fair chance to get ahead, then call me a class warrior.

I’ve got friends, too — and they’ve got friends, and they’ve got friends, and they’ve got friends … enough to cause a computer meltdown at Discover The Networks.

That’s why we’re winning elections. And we don’t plan to stop until this war is won … for the good guys.

Here’s a news flash for the folks at WorldNetDaily: If they think it’s “radical” to defend Social Security, fight for Medicare, and make sure that the wealthy pay their fair [share] of taxes, then stick around. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Threat of a Discover the Networks website hack? Threat of pushing the class warfare envelope again and again?

Nothing new here. As for “ain’t seen nothin’ yet”, right back atcha.