McCain supporters or Obama haters have taken two words out of a long interview, “redistributive change” and turned it into the Giant Blob from Outer Space that Ate America. Assrocket at the Conservative Powerline among other rightie sites haven’t bothered to read the interview that Obama did with Chicago’s WBEZ that was mostly centered on the Civil Rights movement or is being willfully ignorant – thus also deceiving his readerds, Barack Obama, Redistributor, October 27, 2008 Posted by John at 6:03 PM,
McCain does it pretty well, although I don’t think he fully captures the chilling, matter-of-fact radicalism of the Obama interview. It will be interesting to see how much impact this theme–which started with Joe the Plumber, of course–will have.
Not too many years ago, a Presidential candidate who explicitly advocated taking your money and giving it to someone else, on the theory that you have too much and it would be nice if he had more, would have been a dead duck.
If we were discussing issues with marginally normal, marginally rational people we could just point out the facts. Assrocket and McCain are not the least concerned with the facts – having some regard for reality would require some level of integrity – a quality that is so rare on today’s Right, philosophers and scientists may have to invent a device that can detect such tiny traces. Obama Controversy # 137
CALLER: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical – my question is – with economic changes – my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”
HOST: “You mean the court?”
CALLER: “The court, or would it be legislation at this point?”
OBAMA: “You know, maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor. But I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
You know, you just look at very rare examples where, in during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district – and, the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.”
OBAMA: “You know, the court’s just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just its very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could, could come up with a rationale for bringing economic change through the courts.”
First, Obama was talking more as a professor of Constitutional law then as a politician. Anyone that has done some reading on the history of the Civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the National Voting Rights Act and so forth would know that the courts were at the very least a cumbersome way of pushing civil rights, just as Obama states. Economics only entered into the equation as what could be termed a civil rights glass ceiling. The courts said you had the right to vote – unfettered access to a polling stations remains an issue, and had the right to an education, but a hundred years of economic stagnation imposed on African Americans limited their potential to become part of mainstream society. The Right has said, mostly as reactionary slogan rather then genuine principle, that the rights liberals found through the courts were an infringement on the legislative branch. They have also just as adamantly screamed that every America should be part of/fit into the mainstream. Obama comes at the answer from another direction, but his philosophical point of view, that it is better to get a consensus of Americans behind legislative solutions, should be comforting to a genuine Republican. Yet, an idea on which liberals and Republicans should so obviously be able to have a civil dialogue is “radical” and “socialist”. Obama’s specially addressed reparations through the courts and didn’t think that was a good idea. Right-wing pundits go berserk at the mere mention of reparations are now pretending that part of the conversation didn’t take place. Obama sounds like James Madison, while the Right sounds like they’re willfully ignorant of American history:
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” Federalist No. 57
Its Founding Father’s Liberalism 101, to pursue the common good – education and economic opportunities for everyone. The Right thinks that to pursue such virtues is oppressive – they’re like bank robbers who think the police are infringing on their right to steal. McCain, Assrocket and Drudge aren’t just lying they’re trying to turn language upside down and inside out. Public discourse becomes right-wing code and they and only they know the meaning on any given day. Today’s Right clearly constitutes what Madison called a faction,
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Federalist No. 10
Imagine if Obama had made a speech in which he said equal education was for the best “aggregate interests of the community” – the Right would still be screaming socialist. The choices here aren’t good. The Right is either lying, doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or are maliciously twisting every little phrase that Obama ever uttered to demonize him. OK, there is a forth option, a combination of all three.
Its ironic that so many Conservatives have taken to the net to rile against the so-called redistirbution of taxes since the net was developed using redistributed taxes. A person of character, who believed such nonsense would refuse to use a technology produced by “socialism”.
I rarely say this, but a must read by Jon Swift, Great Moments in Election-Year Blogging
No matter what happens in this year’s election, the conservative blogosphere deserves to win a collective Pulitzer Prize for its election-year coverage. While the mainstream media has given Americans a very distorted picture of Barack Obama, portraying him as a thoughtful, intelligent, unflappable, decent family man who has the temperament and judgment to be President, the conservative blogosphere has been the only place where you can get the real story. Hampered by quaint, old-fashioned rules of journalism that require citing evidence and reputable sources, the mainstream media has failed to report a number of important stories about Obama and the conservative blogosphere has had to step up and do the media’s job for them. As a public service I have collected some of the most important of these stories in one place. Pulitzer Prize judges, take note!
Some of the stories below are shocking and even hard to believe, but they weren’t published on crazy, fringe websites. They appeared on some of the most distinguished and well-respected sites on the Internet.
If you appreciate well crafted satire click over for the complete post.
The infighting within the McCain campaign has become increasingly public, with growing frustrating directed at Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Last week, CNN reported that one McCain source called Palin “a diva” who “takes no advice from anyone.” Politico’s Mike Allen reports another McCain adviser’s criticism of Palin:
***In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”
I guess the honeymoon is over.