If I am not mistaken, that was a criticism of the USA, a criticism that I view as not just on-point, but historically connected to the other meaning (i.e. the myth of the USA as a New Israel, God's Own Country, Manifest Destiny, City On A Shining Hill, originating with the Pilgrims etc. and kept alive ever since).

his view is that while it is understandable that 'foreigners' from poor countries should choose to work in Germany, they should not be allowed to.

That, however, was indeed how I read him too, and I strongly disagree on this (I think immigrants don't really change joblessness either way, as they represent both new workers and new consumers: merely increasing the economy - but won't reduce pensions problems either). The only angle of economic migration/guest workers I think is left-relevant is a potential hollowing-out of workers' rights and pay reductions, both of which can be addressed by laws extending to these migrants rather than limiting immigration. However, this disagreement doesn't make this particular speech nicht salonfähig to me (I think this is just as wrong as arguing that immigrants or more children would reduce pensions fund deficits). I also note that Lafontaine advocated raising foreign aid in connection with restrictive immigration policy - that's decidedly more progressive than what all mainstream parties except Greens (and Prodi!) do across Europe now, which is restrictive immigration policy alone. (It's a bit hypocritical from the SPD to criticise Lafontaine as extremist after having enforced a 7-year limit on free movement between new and old EU members and Schily supporting Italy's policies.)

Then there was the utterly bizarre argument a couple weeks later that the Nazis weren't actually xenophobic?!

Now that is truly out of context! He said they were racist not xenophobic, bringing in foreigners for slave labour, and insinuated that this is repeated now in a different form, which indeed is evidence that he views economic migrants as victims of evil capitalists. On the other hand, I mostly disagree with this too - economic migrants may be exploited, but often escape worse at home, so it's an abuse they accept on their own rational decision rather than being fooled.

And yes, the Die Zeit article is a hatchet job...  But what does Lafontaine expect - right wing journalists certainly aren't going to soft pedal anything he says, and left wing ones will jump on this sort of stuff regardless of who says it.  Anyways, I want anybody who uses this sort of rhetoric to get raked over the coals; pour encourager les autres if you will...

Well, I'm no Lafontaine, so I'd like something more objective than a hatchet job to form my opinion of him :-) But, as for what Lafontaine should expect (based on what he writes in his book, or even if he just talked loosely), I agree with you 100%: he deserves to be raked, just like Mölleman deserved it even if Sharon is a war criminal.

If a party without those two ugly facets but with the same program existed, I'd have no problem with them being in government.

Let's end this with a hope that a generation change will take care of both your problems (which to emphasize, even if with a different weight, are my problems too). Altough the Left Party having the highest voter share in the pre-pensioneer generation was thematised, their 8% share (just 0.7% below the overall) among first-time voters shows re-supply isn't truly critical. (I think we should continue this debate when Saturday posts his thread.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}