Imagine that a week before a presidential election, a radio interview surfaced in which the Republican candidate had called for, say, the abolition of Social Security. Now imagine the broadcast networks' reaction to that nugget: "We interrupt regularly-scheduled programming for this Breaking News," followed by 24/7 coverage with talking heads pondering the devastating impact on America's seniors, the overall economy, the future of Western civilization, etc. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman would be booked from now till election day, offering his pained pronouncements.But how do those same networks react when a radio interview [YouTube after the jump] surfaces of Barack Obama in a call for the redistribution of wealth, in which he laments the Supreme Court's insufficient radicalism in pursuing redistribution and refers to the civil rights movement's failure to develop a better strategy to bring about wealth redistribution as a "tragedy?
Insert cricket-chirp soundtrack here.
When, awakening, I saw the story up on Drudge, I made it a point to monitor the crucial first half-hour of Today, Good Morning America, and the Early Show, to see how much coverage they devoted to the radio interview. Results:
- Today Show: zilch
- Good Morning America: zip
- The Early Show: nada
What makes you madder: the networks' burying of the story, or the fact that their deep-sixing of it was so predictable?
Note: While I was off watching the broadcast networks, my NB colleage P. J. Gladnick, who was on this story early, and has also detailed the Kossacks panicky reaction to it, noted that Morning Joe, on cable-network MSNBC, did get into a discussion of the issue during its second hour. We'll update later with details.
Update: Mika Suggests Obama Using 'Marxist Dialect'
If NBC, along with the other broadcast networks, was too timid to broach the radio interview, over on MSNBC Morning Joe was not. Mika Brzezinski went so far as to suggest to Obama surrogate Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) that Obama's redistributionist rap amounted to "Marxist dialect." McCaskill claimed that all Obama was talking about was changes to the tax code. Either she hadn't read the radio transcript or she was, let's say, fibbing. In the interview, Obama advocated nothing less than a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution.
View video here.
PS: we wish Mika well in her debate/discussion this evening at Fairfield University with Monica Crowley. Contrary to a newspaper report that she would "represent" Obama, a university official has contacted me to state that while Mika "in general, she holds a liberal political view," she will not be representing any candidate but will instead share her "wisdom, experience and impartiality."
Note —Not Income Redistribution, Wealth Redistribution: Be Very Afraid
My first edition of this item spoke of Obama's support for redistribution of income. But then I saw a reader speak of redistribution of "wealth." I went back and checked, and sure enough, that's what Obama said in the radio interview. And now that I think of it, of course he also told Joe the Plumber he wants to "spread the wealth" around.
As bad as income redistribution is, it pales in comparison to wealth redistribution. Income is what people earn. Income redistribution comes about through steeply progressive income taxes. Wealth is what people accumulate over the course of a lifetime of earning. Wealth redistribution implies nothing less than government confiscation of the nest eggs people have labored all their lives to build up. Be very afraid.
And don't think it can't happen. After all, Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama looks to Europe for inspiration. A number of European countries have a "wealth tax" in which people are required to annually pay a percentage of their net worth--on accumulated wealth that was of course already taxed at the time it was earned. Extra credit to France for its socialistic name for the levy: the "solidarity tax" on wealth. Vive la revolution!
Excerpt from transcript of Obama's 2001 interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ [via Power Line]:
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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But 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 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, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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.
One of the I think 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 and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
FOX ain't scared
October 27, 2008 - 07:42 ET by Cool ArrowFOX & Friends was all over it this morning. Played some of it. Even brought in Michelle Mallkin for the discussion.
"My people perish for lack of wisdom"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The Warren Court wasn't radical enough?
October 27, 2008 - 07:51 ET by TailgunnerI'm convinced that Obama will have his opposition silenced, intimidated and imprisoned (but his intentions will be good).
The Democratic Socialists are about to take over all branches of government. We're in real trouble.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Obama =
October 27, 2008 - 08:16 ET by NL207Obama = Tyrant.
Silencing opponents and political thuggery have been hallmarks of the Obama political career. The leftwing of the Democratic party, especially the netroots lot are political thugs as well. They will support and even demand these repressive and unconstitutional measure being proposed by Obama: "Fairess Doctrine", abrogation or repeal of 2nd Amendment, and some form of censorship of the internet intended to silence the right but disguised as an anti-porno campaign or some such.
Megyn Kelly
October 27, 2008 - 08:17 ET by Cool ArrowMegyn Kelly is interviewing Byron York (National Review) right now.
Thank God for FOX.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
They came for Joe
October 27, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Anchor89"I'm convinced that Obama will have his opposition silenced...."
Case in point, just see what they did to Joe the Plumber!
From Heritage.org:
They Came for Joe
How did these news organizations get such detailed news about one man in Ohio so quickly? The Columbus Dispatch reports : “State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about Joe the Plumber.” Despite the fact Wurzelbacher had no child-support cases pending with Cuyahoga County, the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency accessed information on him from the state’s database. And although there are no know police investigations of Wurzelbacher, the Toledo Police Department also pulled information on him. These requests, which would be illegal if they were not part of official state business, came within 48 hours of the presidential debate.
Most Americans are just waking up to this very scary fact: much of their personal data is now entrusted to state and local employees who are increasingly unionized with a liberal worldview. Public-sector unions have become the heart and soul of the labor movement.
And guess what? These unions not only give heavily to Democrats, but they also actively campaign for them. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is made up of 3,500 local unions representing 1.4 million members. In 2008 its members gave 99% of all their money to Democrats.
Anchor89,
October 27, 2008 - 11:23 ET by AgnosticDon't forget the "reporters" need to have their paid sources for this type of information. I'm sure you have heard that information came from "an anonymous source close to the investigation" or from "source inside the department not authorized to give a statement".
Anyone angered?
October 27, 2008 - 07:47 ET by BKeyserI don't know whether I'm just numb to this stuff, or have learned in my old age to just suppress it better than I used to. The media complicity in trying to ram an unqualified far-left candidate into office is almost as criminal as it is unabashedly self-depricating. These folks in the press are setting themselves up to lose all that they hold dear: the unfettered access needed to destroy anyone they want. They think that Bush protecting national security information was secretive, just wait till Obama reigns supreme... I'm just completely amazed at how they've had their stings pulled and speech manipulated- especially the veteran journalists.
I can speak for a number of us here.
October 27, 2008 - 08:00 ET by JWFWe have entered a parallel dimension where the opposite is true. This guy, this campaign should rightly be the laughingstock of the country. We are angry at the Mainstream Press for blocking every effort to get the truth out about this man.
Yes, a lot of people are angry.
The rage meter is pegged.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
SHOCKED !
October 27, 2008 - 07:49 ET by DanoI am sooo shocked by the lack of coverage by the main stream media ! (sic,sic)
why so shocked?
October 27, 2008 - 09:01 ET by ShadowsPapaUCLA
Newsroom > Research >
News Releases
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By
Meg Sullivan
| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the
newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times.
The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage
by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the
mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the
left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which
is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias
in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys
have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim
Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was
surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of
Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that
nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy
scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics,
which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's
support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the
percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue.
Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker,
where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After
adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate
gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the
political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them
college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10
years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think
tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning
Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S.
lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a
lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA
political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S.
Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure.
And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news
stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS'
"Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second,
third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street
Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times
scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's
"NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close
second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our
efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and
vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer,
Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't
centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and
insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox
News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing
outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found
ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All
three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report
found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as
ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly
perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of
economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America,"
CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume"
and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most
centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in
political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street
Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as
determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85
versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York
Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than
former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report,
ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show,"
Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition,"
CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.
Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting
than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they
omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study
finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge
Report was slightly left of center.
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report
was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other
Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt
Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is
merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National
Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal
news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked
eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news
outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time,
Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more
conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets
in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our
sample (62.8)."
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the
appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete.
They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported
Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George
Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd
received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or
left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own
salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose
said.
The results break new ground.
"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or
liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose
said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to
known commodity — politicians."
-UCLA-
MS580
Referendum on Socialism
October 27, 2008 - 07:49 ET by wiseprinceThis has to be talked about at nausim by McCain and/or Sarah. Frame the debate for the remaining days as a debate between Freedom and Fairness. Just keep saying it, Redistrbiution of wealth is a pillar of socialism. Obama wants to redistribute wealth, and shows himself to be a socialist. If he doesn't answer it then so be it the claim will stick. If he answers it then they have successfully made this a referendum on socialism in the United States. Trust the American people at that point. Socialism will not fly in America. By the way, the media will not be able to help themselves. If this is said often enough the media will feel compelled to help Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama with 'Fact checks'. This will also help to frame the debate (though they don't realise it)
http://www.voicesint...
Good point sir.
October 27, 2008 - 08:05 ET by JWFIf I can, though, and don't be upset. It is "ad nauseum" Translation: to the point of nausea. It is latin, a dead language. Kinda like me after you read this post.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Actually, it's "ad
October 27, 2008 - 09:05 ET by HockeyKidActually, it's "ad nauseam". ;)
Doh!
October 27, 2008 - 18:06 ET by JWFMy correction stands corrected.
the Smoking Gun
October 27, 2008 - 08:08 ET by Gat New YorkThere has been a narrative of Obama's life and career. from his mentors to his actions, Obama has a clear and uninterrupted story of a developing socialist that has roots in Black Liberation Theology. He inadvertenly let his guard down with Joe the plumber, but this 2001 radio interview is an uninterrupted smoking gun about Obama's true belief and how he would govern.
There needs to be mass mailings to editors of major newspaper dailies as well as all of the broadcast media to inundate them and force them to air it and deal with it.
Who chases who?
October 27, 2008 - 08:26 ET by KC MulvilleGNY, although I completely agree with you, I must mention the social absurdity of private citizens needing to inform the news media about significant public events. After all, aren't they supposed to inform us? We'll get the predictable John-Edwards-style explanation. The story is beneath them. The source is (gasp) not as objective as the MSM standards dictate (i.e., not a Democrat).
Let's not fall for it yet again. Don't tell the news media. (That's like telling Tom Hagen that Sonny Corleone killed someone. Hagen won't "do the right thing." Hagen will bury the evidence and then silence you.) Tell your neighbor. Tell your uncle. Find a watercooler. The news media isn't an open forum, no matter how often they tell you.
And, after the Obama campaign exploded over the weekend with indignation about Joe Biden questions about whether Obama might be a "redistributionist," I won't hold my breath waiting for Obama to address how his own words prove the accusation.
Agree but
October 27, 2008 - 08:53 ET by Gat New YorkI agree that anyone you know or meet needs to be informed first and foremost, since the news media does not do it.
Regarding the news media I believe Editors are under the impression that their actions are endorsed by their readers because they don't hear anything different. They need to be informed how unprofessional they are and that they need to be accountable for their actions.
Maybe
October 27, 2008 - 09:39 ET by KC MulvilleIt's just those plummeting circulation numbers should have given them a wake-up call. They will blame everything else before admitting their own blindness.
Bush's fault
October 27, 2008 - 10:19 ET by SeashellI am sure that they will find a way to blame George Bush for it.
It's laughable
October 27, 2008 - 07:54 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarThe media sits there, scratching their heads (and other body parts), wondering why circulation and ratings are dropping through the floor. "Hmmmm, it must be the internet. Yeah, that's it ... the internet!!!"
They've bargained with the Devil and getting what they "payed" for.
Good ridance to bad rubbish.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
You're exactly right
October 27, 2008 - 08:19 ET by wiseprinceI am heartened by the fact that this will be the last election that the media will have sway over enough people to drastically make such a huge difference. If we can drag McCain over the finish line the next election may just be an election about ideals rather than driveby hit pieces
http://www.voicesint...
Message from the MSM
October 27, 2008 - 07:59 ET by northoneThere is absolutely nothing to this story. We are not about to start stirring up anything that may impact the coronation of our Mesiah, Saint Obama.
Stick to the important stories, like Palin's wardrobe.
OBAMA AND CLIMATE CHANGE
October 27, 2008 - 08:05 ET by TufrmoneWell this doesn't look good, does it?
If and when Obama wins, it looks like redistribution economics for America. You know when other countries do stuff like this, they usually suspend everyone's rights except the people who benefit from what they're doing.
I think the main stream media's going to get the politics they've been asking for.Of course they probably wont like it, but then the Bourgoise never do, do they?
You know we'll never be able to say that people complain about the weather all the time, but they never do anything about it. Well, we did and its about to get very very hot in America.
Tufr
The MSM needn't worry
October 27, 2008 - 08:27 ET by ckbennetttnThe MSM doesn't have a thing to worry about as part of the elite--they're protected. Fox News, Rush, et al.-they are the ones who will have to worry. My wife said that one of the talking heads onone of the weekend news shows stated that they'd be glad when they could reinstate the fairness doctrine. That's awfully bold.
“I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal.” --Barack Obama
Wouldn't the Fairness
October 27, 2008 - 08:39 ET by sherylsimsWouldn't the Fairness Doctrine apply to them as well? Wouldn't they have to give equal time to the conservatives on their programs too? Why would they be FOR that? Or is the fairness doctrine just to make people quit disagreeing with them in other forums? How would they get around the idea of having some competing viewpoints thrust upon them?
They just want this to apply
October 27, 2008 - 10:24 ET by SeashellThey just want this to apply to talk radio. There is nothing unfair about the cable networks or the "big three" (CBS, NBC, ABC). <sarc>
TO ALL MY DISCIPLES:
October 27, 2008 - 08:06 ET by northoneHurry!! Get out and vote early, and vote often (Thank you, ACORN!) I need all your votes as soon as possible before anyone else finds out about my Marxist leanings.
Your President-elect,
Barrack
Leanings? LEANINGS?!
October 27, 2008 - 08:28 ET by HockeyKidLeanings? LEANINGS?! Sorry, northone, I agree with your sentiment, but you're being far too kind. 0bama doesn't have Marxist leanings. He is a died-in-the-wool radical Marxist, with all the trimmings.
Leftist politicians know they have to run to the center to get elected. If what we've seen is 0bama's idea of running to the center, wait until the campaign's over and the Politburo-er-cabinet has been announced.
Good morning Kid
October 27, 2008 - 08:37 ET by cocodrieStalin had slight marxist leanings also.
Touche.
October 27, 2008 - 08:51 ET by HockeyKidTouche.
Does anyone else
October 27, 2008 - 08:10 ET by HillbillyKingfind the fact that Barry, as a Constitutional lawyer, is thoroughly trained in the appropriate methods in making an end run around that document? What I mean is, he has studied, extensively, the means be which the Constitution can be subjugated. As such, he is well versed on the required path in bringing about the things he describes in his interview.
Hello, SSA or the Socialist States of America.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
HBK
October 27, 2008 - 11:34 ET by BlondeWhy do you think he became a constitutional lawyer? Know thine enemy?
Have you heard what he's said about appointing Supremes? He's looking for "fairness". Sheesh!
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Sad for America
October 27, 2008 - 08:22 ET by ckbennetttnThis guy is about to become POTUS and completely change this country for the worse.There was a time when saying things like "economic justice" and "redistribution" would relegate one's candidacy to the scrapheap. I fear that Obama will cause irreversible damage to this country in many ways.
“I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal.” --Barack Obama
Here's the nut:
October 27, 2008 - 08:23 ET by HockeyKid0bama, in his own words, states that his oath of office to serve in the United States Senate was taken under false pretense. That is, he no more intends to support and defend the Constitution than he intends to let his daughters be "punished with a baby". Therefore, he clearly is not a man of his word, and he intends to make the same lie on Inauguration Day.
Like hell I can't say this SOB's un-American. He is the poster boy for un-American ideas.
Fox Coverage
October 27, 2008 - 08:39 ET by BKeyserI just saw Fox's Megan Kelley interview NRO's Byron York. Mr. York (somewhat) downplayed the Obama comments- indicating that the progressive tax system already in place is a form of wealth redistribution. I have to disagree vehimently with that analogy- (at least to my feeble mind) while the wealthier pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, it theoretically is not just given to lower income people in the form of a check or credit. Yes, there are handout programs- welfare, food stamps, etc- and yes that money comes from the pool of tax revenue into which the wealthy pay that greater percentage- but the puposes of those programs, at least initially, was to help people get back on their feet and be weaned off of the government assistance. It seems to me the "redistribution of wealth" mantra is an effort to permanently alter the range of personal wealth -by taking money earned by some people and giving it to those who have not earned it- without end and to the detriment of the desire for personal-financial gains.
No, the progressive tax
October 27, 2008 - 08:56 ET by HockeyKidNo, the progressive tax system is indeed redistribution. It's just packaged in a way to make it sound palatable--as you've demonstrated. But it is the result of leftist intentions. This is why a flat tax or a consumption tax would be much more in line with American principles than our current tax system. Either of these plans would also make Americans much more sensitive to the amount of money the federal government actually removes from their pockets every day. This would be A Very Good Thing.
York is off
October 27, 2008 - 08:56 ET by Gat New YorkWhat Obama is talking about in this interview is not a progressive tax system at all. he is talking about anything from reparations form slavery to affirative action on steroids.
York is spending too much time inside the beltway.
Easy there, fella. I
October 27, 2008 - 09:01 ET by HockeyKidEasy there, fella. I didn't hear the interview, but from earlier comments I presume that Mr. York was pointing out that we already have redistributive policies in America, such as the progressive tax code--NOT that 0bama was talking about the tax code in the interview in question. Having heard him on several occasions, I wonder if Mr. York was pointing out the unfortunate fact that many Americans won't see anything wrong with the idea of redistribution, even though it's economic poison.
What Obama was talking
October 27, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Gat New YorkWhat Obama was talking about had nothing to do with a progressive tax policy. He was talking about the Supreme Court make more broad based laws from the bench on issues regarding affirmative action which would probably guarantee certain citizens with a job and at a certain pay grade. How else can one interpret what Obama said?
Last week, Charles
October 27, 2008 - 08:57 ET by marpelLast week, Charles Krauthammer, on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume (my TV journalist hero), opined that if Obama raises the income tax percentage to 40%, he doesn't see anything wrong with that. He noted that during the Eisenhauer administration it was at 91%, and during the 70's it was at 70%. But what he failed to mention was that during those times, Americans had a ton more deduction options...car loan interest, credit card interest, etc.
I was disappointed in Krauthammer...one of the few times I was.
I think the Obama administration, combined with the nutjobs leading the Congress and Senate will sink this nation to new levels. Anyone who limped through the Carter years will remember how we all felt paying 20% interest for our mortgages...and those weren't subprime. Those were prime rates.
But, America is a strong nation with strong citizens. I think in my grandchildren's life time, there will be a revolution to bring this country back to the Republic for which it stands.
Sorry to have rambled on...
wealth sharing
October 27, 2008 - 08:57 ET by JIMMY1660as we have known right along,BHO is going to take and take, and give to those who have not earned it. when they come for my Savings, Retirement, 401k, Ira, who is going to take it from me.? I will not share with anyone , except for those i deem worthy. Its called robbery, and the law enforcement community, i will insist arrest those taking, w ill insist upon prosecution, and i will insist upon execution.(oops, a little harsh, no!!) the founding Fathers, understood tyranny from the government. BHO hates the constitution and the freedoms it brings-this Marxist, Socialist must be stopped.
allow me to Love America
It looks like americans are
October 27, 2008 - 10:45 ET by MrSnugglesIt looks like americans are going to have to sell off every asset and stick the cash under our matresses. Oh, and keep your guns handy, because the only way they get it is if they break the door down.
As if this weren't all
October 27, 2008 - 09:03 ET by AuH20girlAs if this weren't all frightening enough - this guy was teaching Constitutional law, when he either doesn't understand or doesn't like the basic purpose of the Constitution?
Fall classes:
Constitutional law: Why the Constitution sucks. - B Obama
http://goldwatergirl...
Know your enemy. - Sun Tzu
October 27, 2008 - 09:08 ET by HockeyKidKnow your enemy. - Sun Tzu
We've always known...
October 27, 2008 - 21:47 ET by Oscar GoldmanWe've always known Obama has deep-rooted beliefs in socialism. This is no surprise. What is most revealing, and frankly most frightening, is his contempt for the "essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."
Wake up America! One does not need a law degree to understand the grave threat this man poses to the very survival of our Constitution. He completely disavows the doctrine of limited government. A doctrine supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. He seeks to control and allocate resources through bureaucrats and judges -- allocations based on economic and political justice.
McCain on FOX
October 27, 2008 - 09:07 ET by Cool ArrowMcCain is on FOX right now. He's giving the country a good stern talking to.
He's about to slap Obama down on his socialist ideals.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
How about this article from the NYT?
October 27, 2008 - 09:08 ET by BKeyserThis: In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he
told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The
suburbs bore me.”)
is on Drudge's page this morning.
I find a couple other items interesting in this article such as:
People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words.
Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better
to be called “black” or “African-American,” Mr. Obama dismissed the
question, saying semantics did not matter as much as real-life issues,
recalled Cassandra Butts, still a close friend. According to Mr.
Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing
their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.
And:
In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his
specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity
and social and economic justice.
And:
“The things that make law school politics fractious are different
from the things that make American politics fractious,” said Ron Klain,
who preceded Mr. Obama at the law review and later served as Vice
President Al Gore’s chief of staff. Mr. Klain has watched the senator’s rise.
“The
interesting caveat,” he said, “is that is a style of leadership more
effective running a law review than running a country.”
Oh, come on guys...
October 27, 2008 - 09:38 ET by JohnMcGrew...this isn't nearly as interesting or relevant as Palin's wardrobe.
McCain camp: Please get this into your tv spots TODAY
October 27, 2008 - 10:01 ET by krendlerAnd run it for the next 8 days.
Sorry, but NBC is going to stay as far away from this as possible - or poo poo it t best.
Changing The Colors
October 27, 2008 - 10:36 ET by melpolhttp://www.associate...
Legend tells us that if we change the colors we wear, our fortunes will also change. That is why a gambler who is on a lucky streak will not change his clothes. Changing clothes can also break a bad luck streak. The same is true in the presidential elections when a candidate of a different color is running on the platform of change. Most Americans are going through a period of bad luck in the stock market and in other spheres of life. A vote for Obama is a vote for a change of color and a change of bad luck. But for those that believe color and luck are not connected Obama has many inner talents that will produce the change you so desperately need. His roots are spread out which gives him the experience needed to be a leader of all people regardless of the color of their skin. So any way you look at it a vote for Obama is a change to a luck filled future.
Scene from the Exorcist.
October 27, 2008 - 10:56 ET by KarmaSo any way you look at it a vote for Obama is a change to a luck filled future. - melpol
Let the projectile vomiting begin.
Reporting for doody!
October 27, 2008 - 12:07 ET by CrashI just buzzed the MSM web pages and ABC & FOX are the only sites that I found with the story.
Thank you NEWSBUSTERS for reporting the TRUTH
October 27, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Jaykeand MSM, you should be ashamed for hiding it. A half truth is as good as a whole lie. BTW, if any MSM "journalists" read this comment - you can go to hell for all the lies you've been telling. I'm not wishing it. I'm just warning you.