Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin Takes Issue, Liberally, With '01 Obama Remarks

By Juliet Eilperin and Alice Crites
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Sarah Palin delivered tonight a sweeping -- and not completely accurate -- portrayal of what Barack Obama said about the Supreme Court in a radio interview seven years ago.

"He called the court's failure to take up the redistribution of wealth 'a tragedy,' " Palin said. "Is that an indication he would want to rewrite the founding document of our great nation to achieve his goals, and what does that say about what he would do about future Supreme Court justices?"

The audience, which packed Penn State University's Recreation Hall, roared at her remarks.

A transcript of the 2001 interview indicated that Obama spoke in the context of characterizing the Supreme Court as more conservative than some might think. It's not at all clear that he was suggesting the justices should have taken a different course, and he faulted civil rights activists for relying too heavily on judicial decisions to achieve their social goals.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," Obama said. "And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted."

Obama, then an Illinois senator, later added, "One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community-organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that."

Palin had the highest praise for the radio interviewer, saying that the reporter managed to unearth Obama's true thoughts in the same way that "Joe the Plumber" managed to do a few weeks ago. Mocking Obama's analysis of the Warren Court, she said, "A whole lot of the rest of us, we call that fairness and adherence to the Constitution."

When the Alaska governor went on to attack Obama for his voting history on taxes, a member of the crowd actually faulted Palin for not being aggressive enough.

"You just have to look at his record," she began.

At that point, a man in the audience retorted, "What record?"

Palin, who seemed pleased at the interruption, replied, "Maybe you should get up here and help me out."

By Post Editor  |  October 28, 2008; 10:22 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Axelrod: Obama TV Show to Focus on 'Where He Wants to Lead'
Next: After 148 Years, a Democrat Returns to Harrisonburg

Comments

I truly weep for my country if people can seriously believe the hyperbole and egotism in the McCain/Palin talking points. Constitutional rights, the Constitution?_Bush, far right wingers, including religious nutballs, have destroyed mushc of this already; to vote for McCain/Palin is a slap in the face to our democratic republic. And anyone who can seriously consider Sarah Palin anything but the non-critical thinker she is, seriously needs to have his/her head examined.

Posted by: Alexandra2 | October 29, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

you people and the post have your heads so far up obama butt you can;t see what is really going on--but ifffffffffff that one is elected all we can say after a month in office is we tried to tell you

Posted by: wcruce | October 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

you people and the post have your heads so far up obama butt you can;t see what is really going on--but ifffffffffff that one is elected all we can say after a month in office is we tried to tell you

Posted by: wcruce | October 29, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama a Socialist? Utilizing this logic, McCain and Palin must be Fascists!
Soon after his rise to power, Mussolini defined his economic stance by saying that:
“The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."
McCain on 03/28/2008:"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” McCain said. “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”
McCain 03/28/08

Posted by: lynnlm | October 29, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

My money has already been redistributed...it is not in my house..it is not in my retirement account...it is not in my savings because I've had to use that for healthcare. Who took my money and redistibuted it...

Bush, with McCAIN'S HELP, has already managed, beyond any imaginable scope, to "redistribute wealth". It is in China, and Saudi Arabia and it is in the untouched bank accounts of the "lucky" ones here in the U.S. who have robbed us blind.

McCain and Palin are relying on ignorance, fear and hate tactics to take people off subject. Stop the lies, stop the fear mongering and hatred. You are making a mockery of our democracy.

Posted by: Barbara08 | October 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

What is shocking beyond belief is that Sarah Palin could be President of the United States of America as soon as next January. McCain could die or be incapacitated from any number of causes.
If elected, he should at his first opportunity cause her to step down and allow someone more qualified to take the position of vice president.

Posted by: seemstome | October 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

In the end we all have to pay taxes its a simple as that. Although the dems are classed as 'tax and spend' the republicans are 'borrow and spend' which is worse as you pay interest on it.

With a 10 trillion deficit and 54 trillion liability taxes will have to go up and the only ones who can afford it are the wealthy.

Some of the best times in this country were when taxation on the wealthy was 50% or more. Its time to balance the federal budget and pay down the debt.

As for socialism Palin herself is a socialist who has distributed wealth in Alaska by taxing the oil producers and giving it as a $1200/month check to Alaskans. Now I thought Alaska was part of the USAso so the mineral rights belong to the USA so where is my check

Posted by: akpat | October 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

You put lipstick on a hockey puck it's still a hockey puck.
Put lip stick on Sarah Palin and you have a dumb uninformed radical that has a big mouth and "pea" sized brain.

Posted by: jiggy1119 | October 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Who are these idiots that can not figure out that no tax increase for those getting no tax cut still equals zero tax increase? The one's getting a tax cut, they would be the ones that Bush left out before and McCain wants to leave out again. The one's getting an increase would be the same ones that McCain wants to cut further for. A whopping $161 dollars between $250,000 and $500,000.

Posted by: 2Funny | October 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sarah:

I hope that you will not take these brief remarks as a criticism, but more as advice from someone (you can call me Joe the Voter, if you want) who has grown quite weary of this campaign and its rhetoric.

My advice is to stuff it. Go back to Alaska. Read a book, or perhaps even two. Brush up on the Constitution. Get a new wardrobe. Then return in 2012 with some new lies and distortions, perhaps even being able to embellish some of the current ones.

My guess is that the base will still love you. However, you may still have some work to do with the rest of the country.

Posted by: clgrafton24 | October 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I find it very troubling that the McCain/Palin campaign take remarks made by Obama totally out of context. This is especially irritating as they are themselves guilty of doing or supporting those who did the very same activity. Palin called or clearly alluded to Obama being a socialist when she increased the yearly redistribution of income from the oil companies to the citizen's of Alaska via the oil royalty checks of $1200 a month. That is socialism in action, not mere words. And McCain is a proud supporter of Reagan who raised taxes in 1982 during a recession. And the nation was better for it.

It is sheer pandering and assuming that the average American is too stupid to remember (or maybe a six pack too many?)

Posted by: charst46 | October 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).

Obama's tax plan is to return to the progressive form of the Clinton administration which would target to the largest degree the 1 per cent at the top
with one third of the wealth in the country.

Small business owners making over 250 thousand in profit would see the smallest increase.
No more than they paid in the Clinton era which was without a doubt the most prosperous in recent history.

The benefits of this system would take the burden off the middle class which has only
16 per cent of the wealth in this country. The wage earners and salaried employees like Joe the plumber would get instant relief.

This will encourage them to spend more and stimulate the economy.


Posted by: seemstome | October 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

New video of PA racist McCain supporters in action at a rally, I thought these were over:


http://liesliesmorelies.blogspot.com/2008/10/racist-mccain-rally-goers-pt-8.html

Posted by: Snakeheader | October 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama will be better to the stock market:

Investors speculating on a rebound in U.S. stocks may have a better chance in the first year of a Barack Obama presidency than a John McCain administration, if election history is any guide.
From Bloomberg:
Since 1900, the Dow Average rose 9.8 percent in the 12 months after the Democratic Party captured the White House, based on the median change following the election of seven Democrats from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton. Only twice did the average decline, after Wilson's victory in 1912 and Jimmy Carter's in 1976.

Posted by: Serge_Birbrair | October 29, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

The Repubicans only belive they have the right to lead the country. And when they go wrong, it's never their fault.

No matter what Obama says, there will allways be some that refuse to admit he is the better candidate.

The Republicans are the only ones today, that refuse to rethink their own ideology and practices.

This election is great, because it showns the world what ignorance lies in the USA!

Thank GOD for this operunity to show the world why the USA is a troubled nation.

DUMB IDIOTIC AMERICANS need to clean up their ignorant trash!

President GEORGE WASHINGTON was a DEIST not a CHRISTIAN.

There is a big difference in the TWO!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | October 29, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

Washington Post has been inebriated with Obamamania for some months. Despite this one sided favoured reporting, McCain Palin campaign should adopt a more mature attitude:
1. Do not argue with or blame each other.
2. If they lose, both are at fault.
3. Never give up hope, 7% swing can be easily wiped out due to voters influenced by Race and women who still feel strongly about Democrats being totally unfair to Hillary.
4. Keep hitting main issues of jobs, medicare etc not economy as No President can solve it by himself. Obama's pronunciation of policies are meaningless when the country is advised by Paulson and Bernanke.
5. Palin was targeted unfairly and brutally in this election demonstrating that US does not like women to succeed in Politics to become VP or President.

I sincerely hope they buck the trend and win. Obama win will mean US sliding the way Europe has gone to pander to Middle East states and their fundamentalist views.

Posted by: vsmanibala | October 29, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Washington Post has been inebriated with Obamamania for some months. Despite this one sided favoured reporting, McCain Palin campaign should adopt a more mature attitude:
1. Do not argue with or blame each other.
2. If they lose, both are at fault.
3. Never give up hope, 7% swing can be easily wiped out due to voters influenced by Race and women who still feel strongly about Democrats being totally unfair to Hillary.
4. Keep hitting main issues of jobs, medicare etc not economy as No President can solve it by himself. Obama's pronunciation of policies are meaningless when the country is advised by Paulson and Bernanke.
5. Palin was targeted unfairly and brutally in this election demonstrating that US does not like women to succeed in Politics to become VP or President.

I sincerely hope they buck the trend and win. Obama win will mean US sliding the way Europe has gone to pander to Middle East states and their fundamentalist views.

Posted by: vsmanibala | October 29, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Let's all look at the bright side:
Sarah Palin will NOT be our president, at least for another 4 years.

Let the dumbbell make noise. Does anybody really cares?

Posted by: Serge_Birbrair | October 29, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Let's all look at the bright side:
Sarah Palin will NOT be our president, at least for another 4 years.

Let the dumbbell make noise. Does anybody really cares?

Posted by: Serge_Birbrair | October 29, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

There are lots of people who take pleasure in talking about things they don't understand.
Sarah Palin has become their role model.

Does McCain deliver the same crap?
I guess no. If he has a few brain cells left, he leaves the real stupid talk to an utterly clueless person.
She is using terms like law, court, socialism, constitution, senate, energy etc. etc. without the slightest understanding what they mean.

She had better talk about lipstick, hairdo, clothes and such topics.
But then again ..

"She needed clothes"?
All the clothes in the world could not qualify her for the job.

Posted by: awaler | October 29, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed she wants to discuss a document she obviously hasn't read herself.

Clearly, she didn't read Obama's remarks either. His first mention of redistribution, which was conveniently edited out of GOP postings and discussions, regarded a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, that's a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."

He then went on to say:

"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

Posted by: jandcgall1 | October 29, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed she wants to discuss a document she obviously hasn't read herself.

Clearly, she didn't read Obama's remarks either. His first mention of redistribution, which was conveniently edited out of GOP postings and discussions, regarded a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, that's a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."

He then went on to say:

"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

Posted by: jandcgall1 | October 29, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure which is worse: that Sarah Palin is really DUMB enough to believe the crap she's saying, having no grasp of the subtleties of constitutional law; or that she's just lying through her teeth, flinging whatever inflammatory rhetoric she can think of. Barack Obama is a Constitutional Law professor; his discussion of the rights that were NOT enumerated in the Constitution makes sense if you idiots remember that the compromise to pass our belovedly flawed Constitution was to pass a BILL OF RIGHTS at the same time. Please, people, don't try to get legal scholarship from Miss Alaska, or Bill-O or Rush or any of the other pinheads with no legal training. And remember, what these folks are trying to sell you as "socialism" is the progressive tax system that's been in place 80+ years. Was Nixon a socialist? Ford? Eisenhower? Hypocrites...

Posted by: Omyobama | October 29, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure which is worse: that Sarah Palin is really DUMB enough to believe the crap she's saying, having no grasp of the subtleties of constitutional law; or that she's just lying through her teeth, flinging whatever inflammatory rhetoric she can think of. Barack Obama is a Constitutional Law professor; his discussion of the rights that were NOT enumerated in the Constitution makes sense if you idiots remember that the compromise to pass our belovedly flawed Constitution was to pass a BILL OF RIGHTS at the same time. Please, people, don't try to get legal scholarship from Miss Alaska, or Bill-O or Rush or any of the other pinheads with no legal training. And remember, what these folks are trying to sell you as "socialism" is the progressive tax system that's been in place 80+ years. Was Nixon a socialist? Ford? Eisenhower? Hypocrites...

Posted by: Omyobama | October 29, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Read below and guess who said it...

"But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view..."

"So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme.

But I think the debate in this country is more about tax cuts rather than anything else. And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/21/1577609.aspx

Yep, John McCain in 2000, the original Socialist and RIC (Redistributer in Chief).

Posted by: nowanna3 | October 29, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Every time Palin opens her mouth, she's not completely accurate. She can't be. She has no CLUE what she's talking about. EVER.

No shocker there.

Here's hoping she's on a fast sled back to Wasilla on 5 Nov!!!!

Posted by: smsbks | October 29, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Palin can't remember what she said last week, now she's trying to convince(twist),and take out of context, something Obama said seven years ago?
Seven years ago, Palin was a sportcaster on a boondock television station. Ha!
In 2001, she was supporting the "first dude" in his AIP quest for an Alaskan secession. As governor, she told the AIP they were doing a great job!
The founder of the AIP blew himself up making plastic explosive bombs! How's that for "palling around with terrorists?"
Look up the AIP and it's founder, look up the "first dude" and his associations with the AIP, look up Palin's video addressing the AIP.
The McCain advisers tell her "Say this and sound like you know what you're talking about" What a laugh.
Sarah Palin is now, supposedly believable?
Please...
Capitol Hill Barbie, the great hope of the GOP, is the butt of every joke in town.
Sarah Palin trying to sound informed and objective...what a joke.

Posted by: tommyd60 | October 29, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

OMG! McCain Is A Socialist!

Down in the polls, John McCain's new Divide & Flail™ strategy is to call Barack Obama's tax cut for 95% of Americans "socialism."

Well, McCain must have once been a socialist, because it turns out that for years he supported higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for lower taxes on the middle-class.

The YouTube don't lie:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
.

OMG! Oh No, Palin Is A Socialist Too!

It's not just McCain -- Sarah Palin is a socialist too! Hendrik Hertzberg notes (emphasis added):

"A few weeks before Palin was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that "we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Here's the mavericky straight-talk, my friends:
.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 29, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Unbelievable, these people are so utterly stupid that they don't even understand what it was Obama was talking about. How GDed ignorant can a human being be? Look to the right.

I can't wait for her to run in 2012, it will be a lot different story when she actually has to get votes and doesn't simply get appointed.

An Obama presidency will bring to light all the lies of these low life's, that's what they are afraid of. They live in a delusional fantasy world and the thought of having to live in reality scares the hell out of them. Truth scares the hell out of them.

Posted by: mightytightywhity | October 29, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Apologies for the double post. Looks like I'm not the only one having trouble with the site tonight.

Posted by: nodebris | October 29, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

What's so funny here is that Republicans are arguing as though they believe "Redistribution of Wealth" is bad and wrong. But they don't really believe that (at least, those who know enough to have a belief).

McCain's tax proposal is progressive and redistributes wealth. Bush's tax rates are progressive and redistribute wealth. So did Reagan's, Ford's and Nixon's. In the 1950s, the Republican Congress passed and Eisenhower signed a tax reform with a top rate of 91%!

Income is redistributed among the states all the time (thus Palin can afford to build roads to nowhere on the Federal dime while she cut checks to every citizen just for living in Alaska). The Republican deficits right now are redistributing income from your grandchildren into your own pocket.

Both parties believe in "Redistributing the Wealth." The question is from whom, to whom, in what quantity.

Throughout history, wealth is usually redistributed up: from the masses to a tiny majority at the top until only the top has any money and the society collapses in chaos.

Until recently, America was fairly unique in bucking that trend, by and large, and maintaining a large middle class. Under Republicans, though, wealth has once again begun to flee the bulk of society and congregate in a tiny percentage at the top of the income ladder.

The immediate quibble in this campaign is not redistribution or no redistribution. There is and will be redistribution under either candidate. But Obama believes the next redistribution should correct the balance to a more traditional level favoring the middle class, and McCain wants to to go even further than Bush in favoring the very wealthiest who have already had favors rained upon them.

Remember: these top earners who McCain thinks deserve even more in tax cuts then Bush already gave them are the same people who sank Wall Street, get golden parachutes, and are now sucking up $700 billion in taxpayer money to hold them harmless from their own mistakes -- mistakes that are killing the rest of us!

Do they really need another break? Especially if it comes at the expense of the middle class?

Personally, I think I hold with Jesus on this: "To whomsoever much has been given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been entrusted, of him a larger amount will be demanded." Luke 12:48.

Posted by: nodebris | October 29, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

What's so funny here is that Republicans are arguing as though they believe "Redistribution of Wealth" is bad and wrong. But they don't really believe that (at least, those who know enough to have a belief).

McCain's tax proposal is progressive and redistributes wealth. Bush's tax rates are progressive and redistribute wealth. So did Reagan's, Ford's and Nixon's. In the 1950s, the Republican Congress passed and Eisenhower signed a tax reform with a top rate of 91%!

Income is redistributed among the states all the time (thus Palin can afford to build roads to nowhere on the Federal dime while she cut checks to every citizen just for living in Alaska). The Republican deficits right now are redistributing income from your grandchildren into your own pocket.

Both parties believe in "Redistributing the Wealth." The question is from whom, to whom, in what quantity.

Throughout history, wealth is usually redistributed up: from the masses to a tiny majority at the top until only the top has any money and the society collapses in chaos.

Until recently, America was fairly unique in bucking that trend, by and large, and maintaining a large middle class. Under Republicans, though, wealth has once again begun to flee the bulk of society and congregate in a tiny percentage at the top of the income ladder.

The immediate quibble in this campaign is not redistribution or no redistribution. There is and will be redistribution under either candidate. But Obama believes the next redistribution should correct the balance to a more traditional level favoring the middle class, and McCain wants to to go even further than Bush in favoring the very wealthiest who have already had favors rained upon them.

Remember: these top earners who McCain thinks deserve even more in tax cuts then Bush already gave them are the same people who sank Wall Street, get golden parachutes, and are now sucking up $700 billion in taxpayer money to hold them harmless from their own mistakes -- mistakes that are killing the rest of us!

Do they really need another break? Especially if it comes at the expense of the middle class?

Personally, I think I hold with Jesus on this: "To whomsoever much has been given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been entrusted, of him a larger amount will be demanded." Luke 12:48.

Posted by: nodebris | October 29, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Socialism? Is that all McCain's got left? Can someone PLEASE shout out to him at his next rally:

"Hey old man, it's 2008 - nobody under 45 even knows what that means"!


What's going on with his campaign? I mean it just reeks of obvious desperation.


Why is McCain STILL, 7 days before the election, trying to rally his base? Isn't that what Blunder Woman Palin is for?


Imagine how close this race could have been if the old, moderate, John McCain had popped up after the convention? Imagine the breaking of the tire swing rope as every journalist in sight would have jumped on in sheer exultory delight that the Mac-2000 was back. I want McCain to lose as bad as anyone, but it's almost getting painful, it's like watching a punch drunk fighter get mauled and the ref won't call it.


I wonder what the next McCain campaign stunt will be?


So far we've had:
-----------------------

- Ashley the Fraud

- Joe the pretend Plumber

- OMG! Bill Ayers!

- Drill, baby, drill

- Sarah the Crazy VP pick

- Socialism!!!

----------------------

Am I missing anything?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 29, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Socialism? Is that all McCain's got left? Can someone PLEASE shout out to him at his next rally:

"Hey old man, it's 2008 - nobody under 45 even knows what that means"!


What's going on with his campaign? I mean it just reeks of obvious desperation.


Why is McCain STILL, 7 days before the election, trying to rally his base? Isn't that what Blunder Woman Palin is for?


Imagine how close this race could have been if the old, moderate, John McCain had popped up after the convention? Imagine the breaking of the tire swing rope as every journalist in sight would have jumped on in sheer exultory delight that the Mac-2000 was back. I want McCain to lose as bad as anyone, but it's almost getting painful, it's like watching a punch drunk fighter get mauled and the ref won't call it.


I wonder what the next McCain campaign stunt will be?


So far we've had:
-----------------------

- Ashley the Fraud

- Joe the pretend Plumber

- OMG! Bill Ayers!

- Drill, baby, drill

- Sarah the Crazy VP pick

- Socialism!!!

----------------------

Am I missing anything?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 29, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Did ya'll see her campaigning in NC in blue jeans singin along with Redneck Woman. It's on youtube. This whole idea of her coming back in 2012 is truly silly. She can get country folk all wound up but her message is narrow for the general population. Her notions are very far right and national trends are going to be more moderate as younger generations step up. Right now she has the prepared speeches that are being seen as dangerously negative. Her agenda is clear and related to social moral issues rather than the large pressing issues that effect the country as a whole. Otherwise it will be a sad day to see America at this time dogged by all of her agenda. If she thinks the media was bad, the old neocons would ultimately have her for breakfast lunch dinner and a snack if she got too mavericky.

Posted by: janefree0513 | October 29, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

For any of you that haven't heard Obama's 2001 "Wealth Redistribution" taped comments for yourselves, here's the direct You Tube link so you can. You SHOULD! It's consistent with his recent "Joe the Plumber" comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Posted by: lightnin001 | October 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

She's becoming cocky, more and more the diva... maybe she'll ignore McCain's staff and go on "Meet the Press".

Hilarious.

Posted by: republican_disaster | October 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

As an outsider it is very interesting to see the mangling of quotes. This is a tactic not uncommon in most democracies of the world. It is especially true of the far right and fundamentalist religious factions, of ALL religions. They prey on the fears of the populace.
There is an old English saying "Breeding will show", and it is showing.
After hearing the candidates speak I see one thing plain and clear. One candidate talks about united America and the other splits it into them and us. Not good for mending fences later.
Read world history and you will find it is near impossible to bring people together once they have been so polarised (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia).
I wish both candidates well and hope that the American people have the farsightedness and wisdom to elect the most appropriate candidate and not stick to one ideology or another.

Posted by: zahid1 | October 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

You Kool-Aid drinkers are funny to watch as you bash Palin... mostly because it proves the truth: you are scared of her!

Keep it up :)

Posted by: martt | October 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse


What Palin said is utterly laughable. Obama was not talking AT ALL about redistributing wealth or Socialism in that interview. He was talking about a legal theory of property rights and due process, not about raising taxes.

"In 1964, law professor Charles Reich wrote a hugely influential article called 'The New Property.' Reich's idea was that some benefits, once conferred by the government, couldn't be taken away without some sort of legal process. Reich's 'benefits' weren't necessarily for the poor."

http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/


.

Posted by: el_barto | October 29, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Redistribution of wealth is when you allow friends to steal $9,000,000,000.00 from the Iraq reconstruction fund and do nothing.

When leahy tried to put a stop to war profiteering leahy amendment 3292 would have allowed the senate to hold hearings on war profiteering, and fraud McCain voted with his GOP buddies to stop it.

Posted by: r4147824 | October 28, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Redistribution of wealth is when you allow friends to steal $9,000,000.00 from the Iraq reconstruction fund and do nothing.

When leahy tried to put a stop to war profiteering leahy amendment 3292 would have allowed the senate to hold hearings on war profiteering, and fraud McCain voted with his GOP buddies to stop it.

Posted by: r4147824 | October 28, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

"He called the court's failure to take up the redistribution of wealth 'a tragedy,'"

More distortion from Ms. "I can't think of a Supreme Court case". They should rename the Republican Party the "Oh, Oh, Look' party. They take a speach, pull out a few words, rearrange them and then yell, "Oh, Oh Look!!!" The Press, dutifully reports the distortion and, voila (pardon my French), Weapons of Mass Distraction.

01/20/09. The End of an Error!

Posted by: thebobbob | October 28, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Even in small mostly white towns like Rolla Mo. Obama signs are everywhere. I think people like limbaugh, and hannity are too greedy, and ego driven to be honest on the airwaves.

People know socialism is bad, but thats exactly what Bush did with the bailout plan for big corporations but nothing for people barely getting by.

Posted by: r4147824 | October 28, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

So the Governor of the most Socialist state in the USA, the only state that actually gathers up money and redistributes money to its citizens, wants to call Obama a Socialist because he points out economic inequality. You just couldnt make this stuff up if you tried.

7 more days....thank heaven!

Posted by: MarcMyWords | October 28, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

This criticism of a Con Law professor from a woman who couldn't cite for Katie Couric a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. Please make sure you vote so that this woman gets nowhere near the White House.

Posted by: Truthteller6 | October 28, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

This criticism of a Con Law professor from a woman who couldn't cite for Katie Couric a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. Spare me! Is it over yet?

Posted by: Truthteller6 | October 28, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a woman who doesn't read books. She doesn't know much about the world outside of Alaska, and maybe Idaho. She hasn't studied, and doesn't understand, the Constitution.

She may appeal to Joe the Plumber, in both senses of the word "appeal", but neither Palin nor Joe have the stature and intellect necessary to make important decisions for our country.

She is an embarrassment, a yahoo much like GW Bush.

Posted by: notjoetheplumber | October 28, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a woman who doesn't read books. She doesn't know much about the world outside of Alaska, and maybe Idaho. She hasn't studied, and doesn't understand, the Constitution.

She may appeal to Joe the Plumber, in both senses of the word "appeal", but neither Palin nor Joe have the stature and intellect necessary to make important decisions for our country.

She is an embarrassment, a yahoo much like GW Bush.

Posted by: notjoetheplumber | October 28, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

This, coming from a VP candidate who doesn't even know what the job of the vice president is...

Man, if she gets anywhere NEAR the oval office, I'm leaving the country.

Posted by: techrat | October 28, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

This woman has to be one of the dumbest ignorami I have ever seen. She is a walking blank slate, totally devoid of any intellect whatsoever. A shallow personality without any interest in delving into actual facts. On today's interview on CNBC, sitting next to grand-daddy McCain, everytime Palin tries to actually string a few senetences together she ends up sounding like some highschool sophomore in a remedial reading class.

Posted by: hayden1 | October 28, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden may have committed another accidental truth telling this week when he told a local Scranton, Pennsylvania, television interviewer that under Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposal, no one making over $150,000 would get a tax cut. Biden's remark is the second time in recent days that the Obama campaign has lowered it's threshold for tax cuts under the proposal. Earlier this week, the campaign released an ad that said nobody making over $200,000 would get a tax cut.

Sen. Obama has been under withering criticism from Sen. John McCain for his tax policies, which Obama himself described as being designed to "spread the wealth." The Obama campaign insists that Obama's tax plan would give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, a claim which has come under increasing media scrutiny. The Obama campaign responded to the Biden gaffe by saying that Biden was accurately describing Obama's plan. But the campaign, and Sen. Obama himself, have often said that everyone making less than $250,000 would see their taxes cut. The new figure of $150,000 for tax cuts casts serious doubt on whether the 95% claim that the campaign has been making with great urgency has been true all along.

Ironically, perhaps the most famous individual example of the impact of Sen. Obama's tax proposals, Joe Wurzelbacher, known as Joe the Plumber, predicted that Obama's income level for tax cuts would eventually come down. In a televised interview with Good Morning America, Wurzelbacher said, "I mean - $250,000 now. What if he decides... $150,000, you're pretty rich too? It's a slippery slope...when's it going to stop?" Wurzelbacher's questions may have been prescient, and it is clear now that Sen. Obama's previously stated limit of $250,000 in income for tax cuts is coming down fast.

Posted by: Wiel | October 28, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

This woman has to be one of the dumbest ignorami I have ever seen. She is a walking blank slate, totally devoid of any intellect whatsoever. A shallow personality without any interest in delving into actual facts. On today's interview on CNBC, sitting next to grand-daddy McCain, everytime Palin tries to actually string a few senetences together she ends up sounding like some highschool sophomore in a remedial reading class.

Posted by: hayden1 | October 28, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

It's funny she can hear this guy in the crowd, but can't hear any of the other comments. Very interesting, she has selective hearing.

Posted by: vikkids | October 28, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

A communications major, who went to 5 or 6 schools before she graduated, who knows NOTHING about constitutional law and she is giving a critique of Barack Obama's positions? I don't think so...thanks but no thanks....

Posted by: mamala4 | October 28, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Now we can all breath a sign of relieve, we have been blessed by that great constitutional authority Governor Sarah Palin just exactly what Obama, a constituional law professor and scholar was REALLY saying.

Well...ok, she got it wrong, but hey, we all make mistakes. And after all Palin has shown us her depth of understanding of the constitution, she really knows how the VP can get right in there in the senate and legislate. 'You Betcha!'

Posted by: wes1155 | October 28, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Her remarks are completely inaccurate, off context and dangerous. I find it appalling that she can say these sorts of things without being held to an interview to elaborate (knowing full well that she couldn't explain it).

I also find it odd that she can hear someone in the crowd yell "what record" but somehow misses all the threatening remarks to Obama made at her speaking events.

The United States is a great nation and has given the world some of the greatest leaders in history An election that leads to her being connected to your presidency would diminish all that your country has been and could be.

Good luck to you.

Posted by: tsmdeighton | October 28, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

what record? His record trumps hers any day and the majority of Americans say so.

Go home, mayor, to a scale you're comfortable with.

Posted by: HydeParker | October 28, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company