Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:56 PM ET, 10/27/2008

Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell'

By Michael Dobbs


Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

"In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench."
--McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin

With just over a week to go until the election, the McCain campaign is stepping up its efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet "socialist" bent on implementing a major redistribution of wealth in American society. The Illinois Democrat's remarks to "Joe the Plumber" on "spreading the wealth around" are Exhibit A in the Son of Karl Marx argument. Exhibit B is a newly-discovered interview that Obama gave to a Chicago public radio station back in 2001 in which he mentioned the R-word several times in a generally positive context.

Did Obama really say what the McCain camp says he said?

The Facts

"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."

On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here, courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:

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. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the 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.

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."

While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.

The Pinocchio Test

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

(About our rating scale).

By Michael Dobbs  | October 27, 2008; 4:56 PM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Watch, Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Obama Guilty of 'Infanticide'?
Next: John McCain and the Middle Class

Comments

You guys said
"With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival."

I think John McCain just wants wealth to remain in the top 5% or what he calls the middle class.. ($5 million and up)

Btw, call it what it is.. A flat out fabrication and chalk it up to a desperate campaign.

Posted by: TennGurl | October 27, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Only two pincchios?

"Redistributive change" is legal-speak for equal access to education, right to attorney, etc.

Posted by: richcain | October 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I am ok with distributing the wealth as long as it goes to hard working folks. I am not seeing this in Obama speeches.

If our government would do like Palin did in Alaska...distribute oil profits to Alaskans this would be good because they are getting back money they spent on gasoline and heating oil.

Posted by: ca67klein | October 27, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The only evidence of Obama's "socialism" are refundable tax credits which requires you to work.

But John McCain proposes a $5000 refundable tax credit for health care, and this is NOT tied to work.

Posted by: richcain | October 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Nice chart behind Douglas there. Suppose it shows the race tightening?


Palin thinks fruit fly research is of no use to Americans! Forget the MILLIONS of dollars for a bridge to nowhere, we're spending $178K on fruit flies in Paris, France!

Oi... the problem with electing idiots to make decisions is... that they're STUPID

Posted by: dpc2003 | October 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The pinocchio test?
The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

So it wasn't said in absolute specific words regarding "wealth distribution".

It sounds like "stealth speak" to me. What about his comment 2008 to Joe the Plumber, "spread the wealth around". If Obama is going to give 95% a tax break but 40% do not pay federal taxes but they will receive a $500 tax credit because they have paid payroll taxes. I thought payroll taxes were used to fund social security. They don't want to call it a payroll tax credit, people would be up in arms. So if these same people who receive a "tax credit" and they also receive the same anount of social security benefits at retire, the money comes from taxing the upper class. This sounds very much like "redistibution of wealth" to me.

This is different that just a progressive tax rate. Which implies if you make more you pay more. This plan says if you make less the government will pay you so that you will make more. Hummmmm.

And what is the fine print regarding part time work? Is this an incentive not to go full time?

Posted by: voice4americans | October 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Should be three...

"Significant factual error."

Posted by: dcwsano | October 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, Fact Checker, of completely ignoring the meaning of, you know words. You even managed to wrongly assess a quote that YOU POSTED IN ITS ENTIRETY! Obama said that it was a tragedy that the Civil Rights movement was so court-focused because it couldn't bring about redistributive change the way political (read: legislative) activities could!! Therefore, if there were to be some legislative action on behalf of wealth redistribution, that would fix that supposed "tragedy." This is what we call "reading comprehension," a concept learned early in high school, clearly one you never mastered.

Posted by: octopi213 | October 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

FACT Checker ou have 4 Pinnochios!
Obama is a Communist. You annot spin HIS words.
He said them And, Obama is a "TRAGEDY" for America!
America..the country tha Obama wants to CHANGE by redistribution of the ealth and change the National Anthem! Yes, he wants to HANGE that, too!

America, wake up. Fast before it is too late and this nation is a Socialist Russia!

America...Pennsylvania, Tell him NO, NO and NO again!

Posted by: Texan2007 | October 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

In 2001 the top 10% of Americans held 84% of the wealth in the country, the top 1% holding 33%, by 2006 holding 35%.

As more people fall into poverty they will not be able to afford the products of the wealthy. Wealth declines overall (i.e pain trickles up).

Research shows a clear link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.

When things are so out of kilter, why is there so much complaining about a 3% tax increase - which simply reverts to levels under Clinton? It was Bush that introduced tax cuts for the wealthy, that are meant to expire. Is the economy doing well because of this?

Further, a tax break putting more money into the pocket of the middle class also stimulates the economy - from the bottom up - and it is more assured to actually go into the economy as opposed to an overseas tax haven.

Posted by: JayKay2 | October 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

VOTE NO TO DEMOCRACY!

VOTE FOR CZAR OBAMA

Posted by: Texan2007 | October 27, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

A few comments on the stupidity of the "socialism" charge:

Taxing people who have the money to pay is an idea in the Federalist Papers.

Sending tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes is called the "negative income tax". It was an idea of Milton Friedman, an icon of ultra-conservative economics whose ideas influenced Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: StanKlein | October 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I would not mind Friedman's "negative tax" model, which replaced ALL other welfare and assistance programs on the way to a completely laissez-faire society where all welfare is privately administered. Milton preferred to have NO income tax at all -- but said he did not think it was politically feasible at that time to eliminate it -- he therefore suggested this as a less harmful income tax scheme.

Posted by: JakeD | October 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

If you read and understand McCains "Insurance for Everyone" Plan, it is actually more redistributive than Obamas.John will give 2500 to 5000 to each "Working person or family" to offset insurance costs.What they dont explain though is all monies paid into your insurance, by you or employer backed plans, becomes actual income, not the un-taxed cost it is currently.So, if you pay ,say 9000 a year, about what my family plan costs, ill get 5000 off, so it actually only costs me 4000.But then at the end of the year, or whenever the "insurance credit" is let out, I have to claim All monies paid into my insurance as income, which effectively would bump me into a new tax bracket, and i would probably loose most of that 4000 to taxes.
I dont really see how McCains plan really works.Sounds like it actually might cost me more in the long run.
Obama hasnt clearly explained his "Spreading the Wealth Around" words clearly, but if you listen to the ENTIRE exchange between Barry and Joe the Puker he does make a more clear statement about his plans.He wont be TAKING wealth out of peoples pockets and Handing it out like a lottery win or something.His plan adjusts the income tax brackets to ease the burden on lower income people, and higher on those who make more than 250,000,but only that which is above 250,000.So if you bring home 300000, your tax is increased on 50000, not the entire 300.
McCain and his campaign have totally scewed all comments made by Obama and his campaign to sound like he want to take a "ROBIN HOOD" approach to wealthy Americans, but it simply isnt true.
And social security is a seperate line item of taxation on you income, look at your check stub next time, it should be broken down for you.Oh, and if Obama can successfully re-organize health care in the country, he could eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Madicaide, all of which we all pay into every time we get a check, and probably wont ever get benefits from.

Posted by: mullett | October 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, before you get too gushy about your hero, Milton Friedman and his "Chicago School" of economics, you might want to review Friedman's direct role in encouraging laissez-faire economics as the best of all possible worlds in Chile (under Pinochet), Poland (under Solidarity), Russia (under Yeltsin and Putin), South Africa (under the ANC), China (ongoing), and the US (under every president since Reagan).

All in all, it's a pretty shameful record - now ever-so-visible in the current state of our own economy.

A good place to start is with Namoi Kline's excellent "The Shock Doctrine: Disaster Capitalism." If you don't want to bother to take the time to read Ms. Kline's book and formulate a balanced view, you can read the short-form version on my blog: http://noisetteandthedude.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/economics-the-dismal-science/

Then, please, write back. I will be interested to see if your ideology is capable of being altered by fact.

Or you could just keep on quipping instead of, you know, actually thinking; it IS a lot easier.


Posted by: deberry10 | October 27, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Nice try Mr. Dobbs,

Put all the adjectives around you want to (wonkish, pedantic, academic, whatever) the essence is still clear. And your little spin job above can't change the clear tenor of his interview and his core beliefs.

I was leaning Obama...but I can't do it.

Posted by: wehutson | October 27, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I read your blog and failed to see any accounting of the mess our government CAUSED by forcing the market to throw lending standards out the window. Was that in Ms. Kline's book? I hadn't heard about a Nobel Prize "cover up" going on though. That accounts for Algore ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 27, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview."
----------------
To say "wrong" is a bit of an understatement. Since I assume McCain and crowd can read English, I'd call it lying.


Posted by: michael4 | October 27, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

If this was the first lie from the McCain campaign, I'd be a tad bit charitable and "redistribute" only two Pinocchios. But this is a pattern of repeated distortions, lies and mendacity of the highest order, 700 Billion Pinocchios is the just award.

Mr. Dobbs continues to be too frugal in redistributing his dancing, wooden boys.

Posted by: jade7243 | October 27, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

It is not surprising to hear Obama's RESTRIBUTION of WEALTH considering his far leftist position. Obama is the MOST LIBERAL Senator with DEEP TIES to RADICALS. For example, Frank Marshal Davis is his COMMUNIST MENTOR.

Obama is also THE MOST EXTREME PRO-ABORTION candidate and is RATED 100% in the RATING of NARAL PRO-CHOICE.

Obama, as a Illinois state senator, VOTED four times AGAINST providing IMMEDIATE medical care to NEW BORN-ALIVE BABIES, LETTING THEM DIE. while all other DEMOCART senators VOTED FOR the IDENTICAL federal bill, BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT.
Obama also supports PARTIAL BIRTH abortion, a GROUSOME procedure without ANASTASIA (Abortion is ALLOWED until JUST before BIRTH. So mother can go to a delivery room or instead to an abortionist to kill the baby!!!)

Posted by: GeonLee | October 27, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Zzz more wapoganda. Shameless attempt at spin.

Posted by: ryanu | October 27, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Part of McCain's problem is that the bogeymen he invokes are only bogeymen to those of us who are old enough to have it explained in school why Capitalism was so superior to Communism and why the USA was on the side of angels. Now that the main socialist menace is that the Chinese are embracing Capitalism without that pesky decent standard of living expectation and labor laws that hamper US companies, US companies respond by laying off Americans and hiring Chinese and then scratch their heads wondering where all their customers got off to.

Obama suddenly suggests that perhaps Americans would like some jobs and a little pocket change in order to be able to buy products and McCain screams SOCIALIST!

I don't get it.

Posted by: PhD9 | October 27, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, I'd hate to have any procedure without Anastasia.
Anyway, I am wondering if the 700 Billion Bailout could be considered redistribution of wealth. Old codgers there in the senate wagging their fingers at us all...telling us we are going to lose our retirement...what a laugh. Going to??? If McCain is elected, my aspirations won't go beyond cutting back to part time at the Dollar Tree when I am 75.

Posted by: thejane00 | October 27, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Zzz more wapoganda. Shameless attempt at spin.

Posted by: ryanu | October 27, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH = “FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITIES TO EACH ACCORDING TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS”

Obama = Karl Marx

Posted by: DemocracyRules | October 27, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama stated, circuitously, that neighborhood organizations and ground campaigns would be a more effective way to redistribute the wealth than trying to get it done through the courts. Surprisingly, Obama conceded that the courts were supposed to interpret law rather than invent it. But the fact remains that Obama starkly favors "redistributive change." Whether its change that redistributes or wealth redistribution remains immaterial; Obama thinks that you redistribute rather than create wealth.

Posted by: Insiderman | October 27, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Nothing more needs to be said octopi213,

Thanks. I raised to believe Karl Marx was wrong also.

Posted by: star_key2 | October 27, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

For Jake D... it wasn't the banks that threw lending standards out the window, it was various administrations trying to increase low income and minority home ownership (regardless of ability to make a down payment or make the monthly mortgage payment). ACORN also managed to lobby against banks wishing to merge unless they conceded to lower lending standards, and banks THEN lobbied for reduced acceptance standards by FNMA and FHLMC so they could concede to ACORN and other "community organizers."

Posted by: Insiderman | October 27, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Don't you partisan leftist hacks in the press EVER tire of being so one sided and out of touch with mainstream America?

Posted by: ikez78 | October 27, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Only two Pinnochios? I would find it hard to believe that Holz-Eakins was really this stupid, if he hadn't claimed that McCain invented the Blackberry.

Posted by: thrh | October 27, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to imagine the insular bubble Mr. Dobbs and his colleagues live in to be able to write these things with a straight face.

Anyone who reads or listens to the interview with an open mind can tell than Senator Obama wishes that wealth distribution (beyond what the Warren court achieved) could have occured. He considers it a tragedy that there was so much focus on the court, not because it was illegitimate to pursue redistributive change in that way (he says as much), but that it was ineffective. He wishes more attention had been given to legislative means.

There are two shocking observations to make in this case. First, it should be a profound embarrassment to the entire media establishment that they have failed to do any significant journalism on the remarkable story of Mr. Obama for the last two years. This interview was not hard to find, and yet the Post didn't even seem to have looked for it. Second, the media compounds the embarrassment by trying to defend Senator Obama's statements.

I expected better from the Post.

Posted by: bsamuels | October 27, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

The mainstream media has refused to show us who the real Obama is-- and now in the last days of the election we get a glimpse. I think the tape is self-explanatory. Obama has not backed off his redistribution of wealth comments. If that's what he really believes, why are the dems so worried?

And by the way, does "senior lecturer" really mean "law professor"?

Posted by: Dan72 | October 27, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

The people here who claim they were leaning Obama are flat out lying because there is a fundamental flaw in their whole argument that this does not address.

If you don't raise taxes and then redistrubute them you are living in North bloody Korea.

What idiots you are. Read the damn article again.

In Australia we take higher taxes from the rich to help the poor, in the Bush years you have been paying higher taxes to pay the very rich to get richer.

Are you so stupid you don't know how your own country works?

When Clinton was in power the US had a surplus of over $230 billion, you now have a deficit of over $1 trillion and a world debt of $10 trillion.

And Obama was lecturing in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, not economics.

Posted by: shepherdmarilyn | October 27, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is wrong to change tax code in order to further his social ideology/welfare. Creating jobs is the key to growing the economy; raising taxes only kills jobs. Every American, whether Democrat or Republican, should vote for
leaders who truly are focused on keeping jobs in the U.S. and creating more jobs.

Posted by: ohioan | October 27, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Americans will be for some unpleasant surprises. Like his Iraq withdrawal plan, Obama's wealth redistribution plan has changed with the wind. With his democratic congress we can pretty much expect to be taxed at whatever he wants to pay for special interest projects and, of course, his $850 Billion UN global poverty act to be split among greedy leaders. No surprise that Obama has many millions in undisclosed foreign donations. My Cuban friends warn to watch for massive wealth distribution, widespread nationalism and enforced "volunteerism". Then we'll know we're communists.

Posted by: Marnie42 | October 27, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Oddly enough, Michael Dobbs is spinning this just the way the BHO campaign is spinning it, as some sort of "conservative" position. That shouldn't come as any surprise, since the WaPo has clearly established itself as one of the leading news agencies for the BHO campaign.

Hopefully others won't fall for Michael Dobbs' spin. See, for instance, this:

http://peekURL.com/zuvyitf

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | October 28, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

insiderman:

That's what I meant by GOVERNMENT which did nothing to stand up to ACORN. Rep. Barney Frank should be in jail.

Posted by: JakeD | October 28, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

There are lots of people in Washington who favor "redistributive change." I believe they are called "lobbyists" and I think McCain knows a few of them.

Posted by: flarrfan | October 28, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: vincentcsmith | October 28, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

.


.

A year ago I would have agreed with you that we are a center-right country


However how do you account for the apparently millions who support the ultra-left high-tax socialist Black-Liberation-Thelogy Obama ???


Some of these people are post-midlife crisis protester-wannabees who yearn for the 60s to come back. Yea, they get out of their white mercedes and they want to go to a flower child rally.


These people believe the Weather Underground is "cool." Did it ever disband? Obama could be a secret member for all we know.


The members of the Weather Underground have been attempting to infiltrate the Democratic National Committee for decades - they were at the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's transition period in 1992 - 1993. The Washington Post really should track these people and see what they have been up to - one thing they have been doing is mentoring Obama.


yea.


I find this entire development quite concerning - CHRIS IF YOU ACTUALLY READ WILLIAM AYERS' WRITINGS FROM THE 60s - Ayers says he wants to create an alliance with the forces of Black Liberation Theology and destroy America from that direction.


Even MSNBC this morning was slamming the New York Times on media bias - that is hilarious however the problem has been so severe they cannot deceive anymore and having Joe and Mika admit and discuss it is at least a first step.


Chris - let's see you do ONE PIECE on the philosophy of the Church of Black Liberation Theology - how they see everything through "white values" and "black values" and REMIND EVERYONE THEY ARE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN THIS NONSENSE. Then remind everyone that Obama gave the Church of Black Liberation Theology $20,000.00 in one year.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 28, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

If you actually read the entire quoted material he talks about the victories and failures of the warren court. He holds that the court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society" as one of the failures and states that it wasn't that radical.

His further comments about redistributive change refer to wealth, political and economic justice. He states in 2001 that he is not optimistic about using the courts to make the changes and that he thinks it needs to be done on the ground and through the legislature.

Since he viewed it as one of the courts failures, if he became President he would be in a position to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court which would potentially allow the Supreme Court to be radical enough to legislate from the bench. So what McCain has said can be fully supported by the entire quote you published if you just read outside of the bold text.

Posted by: ken345 | October 28, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Are you kidding? You call this "fact checking"? Sure, Obama says, "I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it," so you give him a pass and say that *proves* he is not for distribution of wealth. Hey, wake up idiot--don't you think that as PRESIDENT of the US he might have some input into changing our institutions so that maybe they ARE better equipped to provide just the remedy he thinks we need? Especially if he gets a 60 member senate and a House full of dems.

Oh, and another thing... "progressive tax" structures are NOT the same thing as what Obama suggested to Joe the Plumber. A progressive tax levies a different rate against citizens in higher income brackets. As much as i disagree w/ that concept, as long as the funds go to the legitimate purpose of gov't, i have no problem w/ it. What Obama is suggesting is that we take those funds and "rebate" them to a a sector of the citizenry that PAYS NO INCOME TAX! that is heinous.

Posted by: nobama4 | October 28, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Your UBER-LIBERAL paper should have the words "REDISTRIBUTION" above the fold in LARGE print if you actually reported the news. "Spreading the wealth" is what Obama and all of his radical friends want, though so much of what Obama is and stands for has been shrouded by so-called journalists at Obama-support entities like the Washington Post.

"REDISTRIBUTION" is the same as SOCIALISM.

The guy thinks the Founding Fathers had it all wrong and THE ONE wants to tear it up. The courts can't do it, so with the help of a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House, THE ONE is going to do it and you are complicit.

But, instead of large articles about this RADICAL, UN-AMERICAN view, instead, we get Dana "Democratic Wonk" Milbank doing a huge article on Palin the Diva.

You all are a joke if you actually can look yourself in the mirror and think you have any journalistic integrity.

You don't.

Posted by: TerpAndy | October 28, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

ShepherdMarilyn -- By reading the comments of those who clearly make the quote say what they want it to say, you can see that they have created their own reality. They talk about "reading comprehension" and then totally misread the quote. This is because they are unable to put the words in the context in which they were being spoken, but would rather pluck them from history to make their own point. It used to be this was only done with numbers (figures lie and liars figure). Over the past 8 years we have seen the total destruction of language in this country. Up is down and right is left. It is "Nineteen Eighty Four" in 2008.

Posted by: vmi98mom | October 28, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats have already been talking about taxing our 401K plans to pay for the couch potatoes and people who refuse to work. This means we will be supporting half the black population and illegals who rob millions each year from programs set up for American citizens. You watch, Obama will tax the hell out of us middle class and wealthy to pay for programs in other countries like Africa.

Posted by: jumland | October 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Until conservatives can understand the correct meanings of words like "Socialist," "Communist," and "Marxist," it's not really possible to have an intelligent discussion with them about economics.

They also need to understand their actual society a bit more. In their fantasy perception, there are swarms of Marxists and "people who don't want to work" rambling around with huge amounts of influence and pull.

In fact, there are few of either, and neither group has any particular influence, except as boogymen to scare up Republican support.

Posted by: nodebris | October 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Funny how anyone can "spin" anything. I once heard a professor use a famous psalm from the bible to support a satanic cult. While that is alarming, it proved that any politician, any reporter, anyone anywhere can use the words either spoken or written to support whichever side they are on, and quite frankly I am sick of it, the Obama plan supports giving people who are already on welfare another tax benefit, and of course they will still receive welfare and social security? And in turn the middle class people like me will have to work longer and harder in order to get their fare share come retirement, or should we all just sit back quit our jobs and let the government take care of us? Is this what the founding fathers wanted from the government? NO! They believed in very small government and very little government interference, so the fact that he said, "It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution..." in light of the Supreme Court, truly marks that he WANTS LAWYERS to be the ones to change the constitution of the US which was explicitly created to protect us from fascism, communism, dictatorships, and all else that can go wrong in governments today, but of course all of the public which normally hates attorneys, during an election year LOVES to elect them to "Leader of the Free World"? Even though they know very little about this man and even less about his politics, since he refuses to share his transcripts from college and documents with the public. He is at the least favoring a more socialistic view then say capitalism, it is not a far stretch from his left wing view to jump to this conclusion, it would seem that he is jumping further to connect McCain to Bush!

Posted by: rocky12272 | October 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell'

Retrospectively speaking, the middle class people have already been paving the way for the richies throughout the duration of time, so all Obama is merely reinterating in his agenda is that we all together work towards an agenda to include all in the wealth of our country and not just some which has been the richies thus forth. Politics are what they are and the middle class have been exempt from the riches like forever. And that is another reason as to why the economy is at a downfall, would you like to extend this financial crisis to your children and grandchildren. No, I wouldn't, therefore, I prefer the economy agenda offered by Obama because it will do more help then harm in expose to what Mccain has to offer. Read and understand the fine print or continue to be stuck like chuck. I can't afford one more day of the Bush administration more less four more years of a McCain/Bush administration. We are in a deep recession and with Obama's economic agenda we could be spared a depression should he be elected from my point of view. God Bless America!

Posted by: Nisey01 | October 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

vmi98mom is absolutely right. Obama made very uncontroversial statements in this interview, but because the phrase "redistribution of wealth" is in there, the McCain campaign, counting on the ignorance of the public, releases it as if it's an indictment of Obama.

Now... I agree with the McCain campaign that a large majority of the public are unable to comprehend what Obama is saying there and will read into it whatever they want to because of that. I just disagree in the way they are trying to use widespread public ignorance to win.

Anyone who thinks Obama's statement is controversial should read it slowly, sentence by sentence, and write out what they think Obama is saying. I think they'll find that they are injecting their own beliefs about Obama into their interpretation.

Posted by: sactonortherncal | October 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell'

McCain is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind. Knowledge is power and in this case one would need to read with understanding the agenda of Obama, which is the best agenda for our economic uplifting at present. People perish because of a lack of knowledge, yet the writing is there in print that Obama's agenda is 'numero uno', comprende. It is so sad that Mccain is digging the botton of the barrel to spread another lie, maybe if he tries coming clean and deal with the truth of the matter, he could spare his campaign the immense embarass that he is currently subjecting them too. Just another tactic to show how out of touch he apparently is. God Bless America!

Posted by: Nisey01 | October 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell'

McCain is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind. Knowledge is power and in this case one would need to read with understanding the agenda of Obama, which is the best agenda for our economic uplifting at present. People perish because of a lack of knowledge, yet the writing is there in print that Obama's agenda is 'numero uno', comprende. It is so sad that Mccain is digging the botton of the barrel to spread another lie, maybe if he tries coming clean and deal with the truth of the matter, he could spare his campaign the immense embarassment that he is currently subjecting them too. Just another tactic to show how out of touch McCain apparently is. Flip flop drip drop McCain needs to peace out. God Bless America!

Posted by: Nisey01 | October 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Nisey01, I can tell that you are probably part of the "Baby Boomer Generation" (which is the generation to blame for most of the trouble economically, environmentally etc., but I digress); I have no kids, and probably will not have any because it is impossible to offer a good healthy upbringing these days. And as far as the Obama politics, you are wrong to think that leaving your own and your children's welfare in the hands of the Government is a good idea! It has never worked throughout history, why? Because of corruption, and who has the worst problem with corruption in State and Local Government...Chicago...and where does Obama come from and where did he CHOOSE to start his political career...Chicago? Wake up people having a corrupt senator run the country is not a good way to lead the next generation, in fact what your leaving behind for your children is a country primed for civil war?!

Posted by: rocky12272 | October 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Nisey01, I can tell that you are probably part of the "Baby Boomer Generation" (which is the generation to blame for most of the trouble economically, environmentally etc., but I digress); I have no kids, and probably will not have any because it is impossible to offer a good healthy upbringing these days. And as far as the Obama politics, you are wrong to think that leaving your own and your children's welfare in the hands of the Government is a good idea! It has never worked throughout history, why? Because of corruption, and who has the worst problem with corruption in State and Local Government...Chicago...and where does Obama come from and where did he CHOOSE to start his political career...Chicago? Wake up people having a corrupt senator run the country is not a good way to lead the next generation, in fact what your leaving behind for your children is a country primed for civil war?!

Posted by: rocky12272 | October 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama: "I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way......Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

Analysis: Obama believes "Major Redistributive Change" is a good thing, and the use of courts for this purpose would be legitimate, but difficult to achieve.

Definition of Optimism: Expectation of a good outcome.

Posted by: jhimmi | October 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said.

Sounds like three Pinocchios to me. The fact that Obama's language is fairly technical doesn't excuse the McCain campaign for willfully misrepresenting it; on the contrary, we ought to expect our politicians to help translate the esoteric workings of government into simple terms, not to use their complexity to distort opponents' positions. How does "the McCain camp is wrong" not add up to "significant factual error"?

Posted by: vendetta73 | October 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

To jhimmi:

I would argue that he’s saying the exact opposite. That redistributive change mandated by the courts would NOT be legitimate because that’s something the judiciary is not structured to mandate and there are no clear, objective rules by which they could so.

He’s arguing that the civil rights movement should have pursued more legislative change. Legislative change can only happen through majority support, and, while I think a discussion about the pros and cons of democratic rule is always interesting, he’s making an argument that the democratic legislative process, rather than hope for judicial activism, should have played a larger role in the civil rights movement.

The “problem” is he’s talking like an academic in this instance rather than talking like a politician, who must speak in catch phrases and dumbed down rhetoric.

Posted by: sactonortherncal | October 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Insiderman

Actually Obama believes that to create wealth you must start at the bottom and let prosperity trickle upwards. As you can see in our current situation, without the middle classes' buying power, goods cannot be purchased and that is the driving force of our economy. Our current government is socialist because it has subsidized losses and rewarded gains.

In addition, most politicians favor progressive taxation, which redistributes wealth. Duh.....

Posted by: BAC-Independent | October 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan and every republican that worships him supports the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is nothing more than a tool to redistribute wealth to the working poor. McCain is just grasping for straws to try and turn the tide but its too late because early voting has started and the Dems numbers are BIG.

Posted by: vdkelly | October 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD and those of your ilk, that warm wetness you are feeling isn't rain. Kneejerk "I'ma muriken" idiocy is what got us here. Progressive taxation is fair and just, two American ideals. If you believe that someone making $2.3 Million per year deserves a $879,000 tax break, while someone earning $19,000 should get a mere $19 tax break, then you believe McCain's got the right plan. You either have lost your mind, or YOU make $2.3M, also.

Ahh, Rocky12272? You making better than $249,999 a year? If so, eat your tiny tax hike and save your pleas for the middle class for those who truly are in the middle class, if not, reread the tax proposals of both candidates, and see what McCain's "redistribution of wealth" really holds for you. Corrupt Senator? Does "Keating 5" ring any bells? The phenomenon historically most responsible for civil war is a grotesquely uneven distribution of wealth, say, like 1% of a population holding 35% of a nation's wealth, kinda like the US has, right now.
Texan2007? You rock, if it is ALL IN CAPS, it must be true.

Posted by: critical44 | October 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I am STILL waiting for our feckless, deferential media to ask John McCain why he thinks Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were socialists. The top tax rate was higher under these presidents than it would be under the small hike (36% to 39% on the most wealthy) that Obama is proposing.

This "socialist" gambit of McCain's is 50% desperation and 50% veiled code for "different, dark and scary". The Willie Horton tactics have simply become more subtle. I don't recall Bush trying the same s**t on Kerry. It's all code to get the Klan wannabe vote out, which is basically the GOP's sole remaining constituency, other than rich Wall Street criminals and Big Oil.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Here is the real bombshell.

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 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

While your "facts" section does point out some of his comments, you conveniently ignore the fact that Obama himself stated that the Warren count wasn't radical enough, in addition to a few other things. He says that the courts aren't the proper place for "redistributive change" to take place, true, but he goes on to support such change to be taken up by the legislature. It is disingenuous to write this off as some right wing conspiracy to besmirch Obama. His words couln't be clearer: he believes in Marxist idealogy.

Posted by: spete1972 | October 28, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Funny how most of the IDIOTS opposing the so-called redistribution of wealth would actually be RECIPIENTS of this money. How stupid can you be? I could sympathize with someone who is actually giving up some of their money but have no sympathy for a benefactor who is fighting for someone else to keep their money so they can continue to struggle finacially.

Posted by: vdkelly | October 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Who IS the real John McCain?

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “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.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

What is it that you really believe, John?



Posted by: Omyobama | October 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Several comments:
I was a lecturer. Usually it is a part-time position or a full-time position, similar to an instructer in which a person is not eligible for tenure or is not expected to apply. It is lower in the educational hierarchy than a professor.

Secondly, I listened to the U-tube entry, which was not posted by a campaign. Sen Obama, judging by his tone of voice, clearly wants "redistribution of wealth". He believes in a grass roots movement, which he has organized to obtain that goal. The goal could probably be facilitated by the courts, as the initial civil rights movement emphasized or by the legislative branch. Sadly, the power of the executive branch has grown so great that it could probably be accomplished by bureaucratic fiat. The Civil Rights movement did accomplish some "redistribution of wealth" in the form of 1960's Great Society and Medicare/Medicaid programs.

How about a "flat tax" as a percentage of income from all sources? Those,such as the "old money" Kennedys and Rockefellers, who have their money in trusts could be taxed on expenditures from the trust.
A base salary, such as the value of social security plus medicare benefits, adjusted for the number of family members, could be exempted from taxation.

Posted by: carbonita1 | October 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Barack Obama...

Are you going to "redistribute the votes" as well?

Posted by: Phil6 | October 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Should be 3 pinochios. This was an NPR interview and Obama was speaking in law professor mode. To be less "inpenetrable", the passage needs to be read in context, so I've posted below the full 3 paragraph excerpt. In short, Obama was saying that the civil rights movement didn't fully succeed because it was too court-focused and that the Warren Court was correct in not attempting to change the economic system. He argues that, beyond legal discrimination, political and community organizing are the appropriate tools for advancing the civil rights movement.

Here's the larger quote:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "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. 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, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama said "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 stuffer from that."

Posted by: Renu1 | October 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama = The Redistributor

Posted by: Phil6 | October 28, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

OOhhh yes the press.
The changes that have started already, are not the changes I expected.
Change is that the press isn't revealing the inner workings of the rules of the Constitution that should be of the people, for the people, and that biggey.....by the people.

The true agenda?

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/045_Press%20Release%2010%2025%202008%20Berg%20Appealing%20Berg%20v%20Obama%20to%20U%20S%20Supreme%20Court.pdf

Posted by: dottydo | October 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed that the people who comment from the right/conservative side of things always CAPITALIZE their WORDS for EMPHASIS? Lefties and Centrists don't seem to use that technique.

I was having an email exchange with a conservative co-worker recently and he was doing the same thing. I sent my reply to him UsInG MiXeD CaSe To DeMoNsTrAtE how aggravating it could be.

I think FOX NEWS started it. But mixed case seems to put a stop to it immediately.

Posted by: mray_us | October 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

spete1972:

You're letting your personal bias get in the way of a neutral reading of Obama's words. He never said that Warren's court wasn't radical enough. By radical enough, I assume you mean radical enough for Obama's taste.

He only said that, in his opinion, Warren's court wasn't as radical as many believe it to have been because it didn't interpret the Constitution as a document providing citizens with positive liberty.

Asserting the Constitution provides any positive liberties would be a radical position. Asserting American political thought implies some acceptance of positive liberty would not be radical, which further advances his opinion that the legislature (with its majority rule) is the place to address positive liberties.

Posted by: sactonortherncal | October 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

mray_us:

nice try, but there's nutjobs of the CAPITALIZATION variety, and other subspecies, registered both Democrat AND Republican (AND Independent AND unregistered, etc).

Posted by: sactonortherncal | October 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To "Texan2007"

THIS Pennsylvanian will vote YES YES YES! to Obama/Biden on Nov 4th.

now what.

CHANGE...its here.

Posted by: PaigeInPhilly | October 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama and socialism is WAY to conservative! Take a lesson from the French Revolutionaries and EXECUTE THE RICH FOR CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIZATION! Let the tumbrels roll!

Posted by: jncurotto | October 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I'll take Obama over that lying sack McBush any day of the week. All McBush is good for is telling LIES. We have had eight years of Lies, enough is enough.

Jiff
http://www.anonymity.cz.tc

Posted by: clermontpc | October 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

American needs to be better educated on who is doing what. Reps and dems are both guilty.

All Americans need to read this book....then All Americans can work together.

"The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.

1. Repeal the Fedederal Reserve Act.
2. Privatize the FDIC (ie...no more BAIL-OUTS!)

Posted by: emajae01 | October 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I am a Baby Boomer, and I had nothing to do with the mess our country is in; it is maybe the baby boomers in the government you are thinking about blaming.

Also, how can you even justify comparing John Fitzgerald Kennedy to Barack Hussein Obama? Get real--there are a few of us out here in for-now-free-country who are not ignorant of the facts nor are we stupid enough to fall for a "redistribution of wealth." Gimme a break.

Posted by: okmulgeeokie | October 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Fact Checker- you got it entirely wrong.

The "redistributive" idea that Senator Obama was speaking about had nothing to do with money, wealth, or monetary policy. It had to do with civil rights.

Civil rights were not provided to minorities in the policies and practices of many governmental agencies, towns,and businesses.

Senator Obama is saying that the courts are not a good place to redress these grievances- rather that they are better handled by elected legislative bodies- so that it is obvious that they will reflect the will of the majority of Americans.

Please amend your article to reflect this. It was not about money. It was about civil rights.

Posted by: Luke2 | October 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse


.

.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008


.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!



http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.


.

.

.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008

.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!



http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 28, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't like Obamas tax plan. McCains taxes will go up since he is above that 250k mark.

Posted by: KD11 | October 29, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

We have seen so much corruption in the government lately and voting for Obama will only bring more government into our lives and with that more corruption. Come on people Obama says a lot of great things, but do you really think he will deliver? No matter who is President they will not be able to fix these problems in 4 years, but at least voting for McCain will allow less government control. Obama wants more money from us to set up programs for lazy people, Africa, and illegal who he feels has the right to OUR money. I for one will have the TV turned off tonight when he preaches to the world. Where do you think he received all this money for his campaigne because it surely didn't all come from American citizens? To bad they couldn't track the money because I truly feel a lot of it came from the Middle East. By the way Obama lovers check out what the French President said about Obama, it wasn't good by any means.

Posted by: jumland | October 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Check this out guys - this is what the President of France thinks of Obama - pretty scarey!

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/the-french-have-a-word-for-it/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: jumland | October 29, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said."

Only two Pinocchios for that? Sounds more like a "whopper" to me.

Posted by: mcclure03 | October 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN

I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.

I am an American.

I am a full-time employee and believe in God.

I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles and believe in American products.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA ..

We like it the way it is!

If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution.

Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driver’s license.

I think it's good.... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I believe the president of the United States should put his hand over his heart and say the pledge of allegiance and should have no reservations about wearing American flag pins on his lapel.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause. Get a Job and do your part!

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA !

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

We want our country back!

We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,

ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

Posted by: jumland | October 29, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

This comment by McCain is nothing but a tastless stab at Reperations and the issue of The USA using Blacks in American for over 400 years with no finacial compensation.

It's obvious that no one in America thinks it's ok to work 400 years for free. It's also obvious that no WHITE American would give 400 years of free labor to his own country.

But somehow in the USA it's ok for this wrong to be commited and go without correction.

But here is some reality for McCain and company. Black people in America do not need handouts from you. All we need is an equal playing field!

Thats what we think all people deserve!

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

Then I feel you black people need to take control of your own lives and families rather then blaming the white folks for your problems. Stop committing crimes and creating gangs and start getting an education if you want to play on level grounds. We have a black person running for President, but that is because he and his family knew education was the key to his future and guess what, they were right. I assume the ones that get the free handouts from the government spend it on shoes and rims for their cars because image is what black people strive on rather then family and work.

Posted by: jumland | October 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jumland... do you have anything original to say or do you just steal posts from others on other websites???

http://www.vfwwebcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=1949.msg6955

http://forums.somd.com/share-joke/2862-yes-i-m-bad-american.html

By the way... I bet you think George Carlin original said this... wrong again Jughead:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/carlin.asp

Let's us know when you have something orhinal to say... like Republican talking points... what will your comeback be... "I know you are but what I'm I".

Stay Hot!

Posted by: evanleigh31 | October 29, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

My comment or question to Senator McCain would be:

Senator McCain, it’s projected this year that every man, women and child in Alaska will receive $3,269.00 from Alaska’s Permanent Fund. The fund generates revenue from royalties and revenue sharing from companies such as oil companies by the State of Alaska and is then distributed by the State to its residence. Isn’t this distribution of wealth and a classic example of Socialism? If yes then isn’t Governor Palin a Socialist?

Posted by: lessparrey | October 29, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

What ya'll seem to be missing is that he was talking about "civil rights." When he and the caller talk about "reparative" they are talking in reference to the civil rights movement. Hello, can you say "slave reparation payments?"

I happen to agree with Jumland that people need to stop relying on the government to "take care" of them.

I don't think ANYBODY is owed money for something that happened at least 120 years ago. In fact, if you check the history of this great country you will find out the true facts about slavery.

Before this country existed slavery was a major business. African tribes (black) captured other blacks and sold them to slave traders (black) who took them to the coast and sold them to European slave traders. Holland and Portugal were the most prominent. When was this? Around the year 1500.

The importation of slaves was outlawed in this country in 1808. Emancipation of all slaves in the country was in 1861.

TIME TO GET OVER IT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade


BTW, calL me whatever you want. I already voted.

DON'T BELIEVE THE POLLS PEOPLE. If the media is as biased as they seem to be, why on earth would you even begin to believe it?

******** VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN ************

Posted by: txmoto | October 29, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

PS to vicbennetnet...

If you dislike it here so much YOU can move out. I happen to like it here and I HAVE and WILL fight for my country.

Exactly how many years have YOU worked for free? Yeah that's what I thought.

Posted by: txmoto | October 29, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

It seems like this is clearly a 4 Pinocchio issue.

You just admitted that they claimed Obama said the opposite of what he actually said. How is it possible to lie any more than that.

Not as if there is anything wrong with a little economic fairness. Our capitalist system is in tatters. As far as I'm concerned we could use a little socialism these days.

Posted by: zosima | October 29, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

By James Bone, Rob Crilly and Ben Macintyre, The Times of London

Barack Obama has lived one version of the American dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Obama's best-selling memoir "Dreams fFrom My Father," lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom apartment for failing to pay $2,324.20 in bills, according to the Boston Housing Court.

The press has repeatedly rehearsed Obama's extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family's American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

In his book Obama writes that "Uncle Omar" had gone missing after moving to Boston in the 1960s a quarter-century before Obama first visited his family in Kenya. Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city.

Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the "Auntie Zeituni" in Obama's memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election.

"I can't talk about it, I just pray for him, that's all," she said, adding: "After the 4th, I can talk to anyone."

Posted by: lucygirl1 | October 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The fact the economy is a worry on everyones mind should we really trust what the canidates are telling us about their tax policies. Hanlon has been bashing McCain for the last couple weeks but now he starts an attack on Obama's tax plan. It also has links to a tax caluclator that would show you how much your family would be effected. Interesting read.

http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/dueling-obama-tax-calculators/91256

Posted by: macebruce | October 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The fact the economy is a worry on everyones mind should we really trust what the canidates are telling us about their tax policies. Hanlon has been bashing McCain for the last couple weeks but now he starts an attack on Obama's tax plan. It also has links to a tax caluclator that would show you how much your family would be effected. Interesting read.

http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/dueling-obama-tax-calculators/91256

Posted by: macebruce | October 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a SOCIALIST !!!

She taxes companies and just GIVES the money to every person in Alaska !!!

They all get checks for over $ 1000 !!!

That's SOCIALISM, but you can't expect a flake that doesn't even know what newspapers she reads, supposedly "every day", to be honest!

Write to the media, from CNN, Lou Dobbs, MSNBC, NY Times, maybe even try the Republican Fox channel [but they are pathetic!]

Also demand an investigation into Republicans who STOLE THE ELECTION in Ohio. Google Ohio 2004 and Rolling Stone magazine to see the terrible truth.

Posted by: uerossrs | October 30, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

He is not speaking of a redistribution of wealth, he is speaking of a redistribution of basic civil rights by restoring a balance to the unbalanced power of the court system.

Nice try !

Posted by: cherrymoondaycare | October 31, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"With just over a week to go until the election, the McCain campaign is stepping up its efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet "socialist" bent on implementing a major redistribution of wealth in American society." There is nothing closet about Obama being a socialist. McCain has suggested a simple 2 tier structure and is open to a consumption tax, with no income tax. You illuminati media types need to take your head out of Obama's rectal area and start thinking before you start writing.

Posted by: mdrew378 | November 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company