ABC Alone Features Obama Exhorting Latinos to 'Punish Our Enemies,' Stephanopoulos Downplays
By Scott Whitlock | October 27, 2010 | 16:41
Good Morning America on Wednesday was the only network morning show to highlight Barack Obama's exhortations that Latinos should help him "punish our enemies." Host George Stephanopoulos played the clip while discussing the issue with conservative Laura Ingraham.
At the same time, he attempted to downplay the President's comments, given during an interview to Univision. After the radio host lambasted Obama, Stephanopoulos defended, "You don't really mean to suggest that it's okay for one side to be hard line and not the other?"
Ingraham shot back: "I don't think it's presidential. And I know everybody's rough-and-tumble in this campaign. But he's still the President."
In the interview, Obama asserted, "If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. If they don't see that upsurge in voting in this election, then, I think it going to be harder."
Anticipating the Republicans taking over the House, Stephanopoulos lobbied for GOP accommodation: "...What are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?"
NBC's Today show and CBS's Early Show have yet to feature the "punish our enemies" clip.
A transcript of the October 27 segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on this, let's bring in best-selling author and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham.— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter
LAURA INGRAHAM: Good to see you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Great to have you in the studio this morning. And you have something in common with Carly Fiorina. You're not a candidate for anything. But you are a breast cancer survivor. You call it thriver. So, you have some sense of what she may be going through. What's your sense of the political impact here?
LAURA INGRAHAM: Well, it's hard to judge. First of all, we should know she's cancer-free. She's had a great recovery. And as many as 20 percent of women who get the reconstructive surgery, which I did not have, they get some type of infection. And it's usually treated with antibiotics. I was in touch with her chief of staff last night, welcoming and grateful for all of the prayers. And very confident she will be out on the campaign trail very soon. Obviously very soon is important because the election's next Tuesday.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And she's still in contention. You know, probably three to five points.
INGRAHAM: I mean, your reporter said it was- described it as kind of a big lead. I'm not sure that's accurate. Some polls show it two points. A couple show- polls show she was gaining ground against Boxer. So, I think it's pretty close, considering it's a pretty blue state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's the thing. Considering it's California, as well, which President Obama won by 24 points last time around. But Jerry Brown now appears to be pulling pretty well ahead of Meg Whitman.
INGRAHAM: It's 1973 again in California. Because that worked out well for California.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What happened there? What's happening in California?
INGRAHAM: Well, look. Back to Boxer, just quickly. Michelle Obama was there yesterday. She's out there for the woman's conference. She said that Barbara Boxer works day and night to bring good jobs, good paying jobs to California. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle couldn't bring itself to endorse Boxer because, basically, it said she didn't done anything for the state. The San Francisco Chronicle not endorsing one of the most liberal senators in the U.S. Senate today, I found that to be odd. And Meg Whitman's campaign, you can Monday morning quarterback it. We'll see what happens. But California is now struggling, George, under the weight of these public employee mention packages, health care packages, that Jerry Brown helped engineer as governor back in the 1970s. And they're going back to that. The state's broke. And they're going back to these policies. Good luck, California.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may all be true, but despite sending $140 million, Meg Whitman, eight to ten points behind.
INGRAHAM: Well, she has to be her own candidate. And she has to bring herself across the finish line.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's pick up on something that jake brought up in his piece. These dueling interviews in The National Journal between the President and Mitch McConnell. Where Mitch McConnell is saying, "The single-most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." You also pointed out, I wanted to play a little bit of this, in an interview President Obama gave to Univision earlier this week.
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
BARACK OBAMA: If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. If they don't see that upsurge in voting in this election, then, I think it going to be harder.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you key in on the word enemies. My question is, you're seeing both sides maneuver, as we head in-
INGRAHAM: But, he's the President, George. He's the President of all the people. For the President of the United States to say, punish our enemies, and that was kind of entreaty to the Latino vote. If you sit on the sidelines and don't punish your enemies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't really mean to suggest that it's okay for one side to be hard line and not the other?
INGRAHAM: No, no, no. I don't think it's presidential. And I know everybody's rough-and-tumble in this campaign. But he's still the President. And the fact of the matter is, there's a national revolt going on against many of the policies he and Nancy Pelosi pushed through against the will of the people. Number one, health care reform. That's not an enemy of the country. That's the people of the country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Given all this, what are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?
INGRAHAM: I think be true to the people of the country. I think what's happened with President Obama is he's forgotten the people. He's been happy with the power. And they've done a lot of cool parties at the White House. They've had a lot of fun. And Michelle is beautiful and all that. But the people want something different. When they thought change, they thought jobs. That's what they have to focus on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, that could mean accommodations from both sides?
INGRAHAM: I think you're going to see the Republicans try to move forward, humbly, but also understanding where they went wrong on the past. I don't think this is a mandate for more government spending. I think it's a mandate for change away from what's happened the last 21 months or so. That's what I think you should look forward to.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login or register to post comments



















Comments
Punish our enemies is a lot different from defeat our enemies
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 4:57pm.
Punish is awful Talibanistic, no?
Looks like Obama is engaging
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:24pm.
Looks like Obama is engaging in that "tribalism" that Chris Matthews likes to talk about.
What happened to the "new kind of politics" that you campaigned on, Mr. President?
I guess Her Speakerness was right when she said of you 'There are a number of things he was for....on the campaign trail."
Punish enemies huh?.....
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:05pm.
How "Nixoneon" of you. Must be a large list.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Obama is assumming that
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:47pm.
Obama is assumming that Latino's are a monolithic bloc like the Blacks. But the Latino's (Hispanics?) (whatever) are as a group hard workers and not given to sentiments for being victims. Most of them want to work, own businesses and protect their families (which makes them social conservatives).
The problem democrats will have with the (whatever you want to call them) is that they are always just one generation from becoming Republicans (if the Republicans stay true to their conservative values). So it will be interesting to see how the democrats come up with government programs to destroy the Latino community as they did the Black community in order to keep them on the bottom of society and therefore dependant on government.
MA, I was reading your
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:33pm.
MA, I was reading your comment and I got to here:
Most of them want to work, own businesses and protect their families (which makes them social conservatives).and my thought was, well, they're going to have to find a way to make them dependent on government handouts, like they did with blacks, then. And then I saw that was exactly where you were going. It will be interesting to see how they will go about that. After amnesty and unfettered immigration, they have nothing else to offer.
Right . The democrats
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 8:30pm.
Right
. The democrats favorite ploy is to create a voting bloc by promising something they know will be opposed by a lot of people so that the issue just stays in limbo.
The dems love to leave bad legislation bad. Social Security has been a gift basket for the dems for decades. Every time the Republicans want to fix the system the dems have used that as a way to scare granny by telling her that the mean old rich Republicans want take away her Social Security. The dems have no interest in fixing Social Security or Medicare, food stamps, you name it. Bad legislation is just votes in the pocket for the democrats. That is another reason the nightmare obamacare legislation is of no concern to democrats. They don't care about either the people they hurt or the wastefulness of the programs. They will reap millions of votes 'protecting' the little people from those mean Republicans who want to fix a broken system.
So where do democrats really stand on the immigration issue? in limbo land. They want the controversy to go on forever. It keeps the Latino's in their corner.
Obama, what is best in life?
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:47pm.
Crush your enemies, seem them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the conservatives!
Punish our enemies?
Submitted by samhermanmd on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 5:58pm.
To what enemy is he referring?
This is inflammatory rhetoric, and certainly not a word that should be used by a president in the political context.
enemies of the state are all around you
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:51pm.
Right here tells you the enemy from the horses mouth - no insult meant. Napolitano made it very clear (from ARRA ala Jeff Foxworthy "you might be" jokes):
The great uniter strikes again - uniting the true enemies of America with the people who used to be our allies.
Laura, Steffi sees you as the enemy that needs to be punished
Submitted by JakeMo on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 6:34pm.
No offense to Ms. Ingraham, but our side needs to stop being so deferential to the likes of Steffi and Harry Smith and Matt Lauer, etc..
When you sit down with these jokers, you are sitting down with the DNC. Treat them as such. There's no need to allude to some third party that isn't at the interview. Both sides are represented. Now duke it out.
Steffi sees you as the enemy that needs to be punished. When you speak to him as if he's an objective observer, you look like a chump.
Yep
Submitted by Paul G on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:25pm.
100% right
Laura knows exactly what she's doing
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:21am.
Don't worry about her, she can and does take on the LSM all the time. She continually wins in debates that are stacked 3-1 and 4-1.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Steffi didn't show up to referee, he showed up to fight
Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:30pm.
I agree. She wins the debates. I'm with you. The problem is that the casual viewer walks away not realizing it was a debate. They think it was a one-sided interview where Steffi failed to interview "the other side."
She (and many others) fail to instill in the minds of the casual viewer: This guy you are relying on for your morning news is not objective. He IS the Democrat party. It's not just about winning the moment, it's about planting the seed that will discredit him forever.
Most people don't pay attention like we do. They're busy eating breakfast, packing lunch, wrangling the kids. They only glance at the TV and they see an interview of a conservative rather than a debate of left vs. right. They don't understand that Steffi showed up with a sheet of talking points from the DNC. They think he's "objective."
From the time we come into the ring, we need to make it clear to the audience that this other guy in the ring is not the referee, he's my frickin opponent.
Latinos should help him "punish our enemies."
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:38pm.
Latinos should help him "punish our enemies."
Well, I think the entire context is being missed here.
Obama is talking about the "enemies" of the illegal immigration issue - his view of the subject.
Obama is talking about the 70% of the American population who do not want his version of "immigration reform - with amnesty being the focal point." Obama is speaking of the 70% who support the details in the Az Immigration law:
The left leaning Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found in a national survey that a strong majority gave their overall approval to the law, which opponents [Obama] charge is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling. The findings:
Seventy-three percent said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them, while,
67% approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.
That's the way it is Mr. President. Want to change the heart-felt view of 70% of the voters? Then, why not try to do it in an open and civil manner - intelectually, rather than by being a "thug president" - you know, in a presidential manner?
Obama is asking Latino's to "punish" the strong majority of the American people. That is a call of division. That is a call to incite violence.
This shall not stand.
(;~/ gary
I just heard BOR open his
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:39pm.
I just heard BOR open his show with that subject, and I thought well, that's certainly a way to bring people together
\sarc off
What are the prospects that Republicans and Democrats can get together on the day after election day? And how would you counsel senator McConnell and, perhaps, Speaker Boehner, if the Republicans win?"Hey, Georgie....how about asking this: How would you counsel Rep.Pelosi and the Democrats to "get together" with the Republicans after they are no longer in power?
mb my answer to Georgie's
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 8:12am.
mb my answer to Georgie's question about cooperation on the Republican side would be, "well, elections have consequences, and if they win, well, they (the Republicans) won.
Reap what you sow Obama.
Don't forget this one....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:46pm.
"President "Dude" Obama, the campaign's over, we won".
Let John McCain deliver this message.
I think Speaker Bonier and
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:54pm.
I think Speaker Bonier and Majority Leader McConnell should let Obammy cool his heels for maybe 18 months or so, then call and invite him for a meeting to discuss plans for working together on important problems. Of course, with regard to any of Obammy's suggestions, they should respectfully remind him that 'we won'.
Liberals just don't get it
Submitted by pbthinker on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 8:53pm.
Here's Stefanopolis, who was in the White House, and he doesn't understand how wrong it was for the President to use the word enemy here. What's up with that? It's got to be a liberal think where they have no clue what "respect for the office" is.
I have my doubts if the Community Organizer will ever figure it out before he gets voted out, in 2 years.
I doubt the Rev Wright has any problems...
Submitted by krendler on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 9:15pm.
...with the rhetoric used by Obama in this case.
BTW, Imagine if Bush or Reagan got up in front of a bunch of small business owners and said something along the lines of "Help me punish our enemy: Liberals"
Obama: The Great Uniter. "Hey, Hispanics: Conservatives shouldn't be viewed as fellow Americans. They are your enemies."
Well, we all know that the
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 10:45pm.
Well, we all know that the 'enemies' are US!!! I'm NOT surprised by Boy Blunders vitriol and anger and hate, even though he manages to keep it on the down-low most of the time...........he is filled with it, and we've known it for as long as he's been out in the public eye. He's mean, vindictive, smolderingly angry, and when he slips up and lets it come out, it's really obvious!!
I was TOTALLY astonished at his whole DUMB AND DUMBER incoherent, grasp for the next semi-thought, car (or bus) in the ditch gum-flapping that he did over the weekend in New Hampshire!!! EVERY word that came out of his mouth was dripping with snide, smarmy, arrogant, angry disdain for ANYONE who isn't toeing the line....and that includes a vast majority of the country, as far as I can tell. The 'Republicans can ride in the back' comment was just the icing on the cake..........the whole thing was absurd and embarrassing!! The Dems have GOT to be freaking out daily at the incompetence and abject stupidity of this poser!!!!! But I don't feel bad for them at all..........they bought into the whole lie, hook, line, and sinker................and the rest of us are paying dearly for it!!!
So, it's official. We're the enemy.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:01am.
So, it's Official. Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are the enemy and Obama want's, not to work with them, but PUNISH them! Thanks for making that perfectly clear, Obama. I'll remember that in 2012 and I'll be sure everyone else remembers it too.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obama's choice of words was
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:13am.
Obama's choice of words was unfortunate. But the GOP had already made it "official" what their post mid-term strategy would be--to make sure he fails, while concentrating all their efforts on securing his defeat in 2012. Basically, the same as their pre mid-term strategy.
Jer
Yep Jer.............you're
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:47am.
Yep Jer.............you're 100 % correct.........and, imagine this.......I AGREE with you totally!!!!!
M-mm-mmm---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 1:23am.
Barack Hussein Obama.
It is absolutely unbelievable how graceful that man appears to move despite so many liberal lips planted firmly on his worthless ass.
MD
Arf arf
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:27pm.
Arf arf arf.......................
Hey, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 10:33am.
kindly link to anything where an R described Obama as the "enemy". Or where an R said that Obama should ride "in the back of the bus". His choice of words was not "unfortunate", it was deliberately inflammatory.
Will we still be allowed....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:53pm.
...to use the drinking fountains and restrooms?
Why, UpNorth?...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 5:32pm.
since I haven't made any such claim.
But, now that you mention it, I would suggest Newt Gingrich's characterization of Obama's words and policies being as "dangerous as Nazi Germany" to be just as unfortunate--inflammatory even--as the phrase drawing the present criticism. I'm assuming, of course, that you consider Newt a prominent "Republican" and Nazi Germany an "enemy".
Now, you can spin my description of Obama's use of the phrase "punish your enemies" however you wish. I clearly wasn't defending it, and I'm still not.
Jer
You are smart enough not to defend---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 12:24am.
the indefensible, Jer, but everytime you cut in with a post, you always manage to word the examples you put forth as a comparison in such a way as to paint the conservative or the Republican as much more egregious in either their statements or actions.
That is what is known as fading the heat, spin, bias, favoritism, or partisanship.
When done by the liberal media, it has come to be called lying, whether by commission, omission, or merely by "shading" the truth.
It is also deflection via the "they do it to" charge.
Very famous tactic, that one.
Or so I hear.
MD
Negative, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:00am.
Not with respect to my being smart enough, etc., but that my comment was deflective.
I was critical of Obama's choice of words. That was directly on point. I also commented on the poster's claim that it marked the "official" strategy of the administration for the next couple of years by noting that the GOP had already established its "official" strategy of continued non co-operation. That comment reflected my opinion and was enitirely fair and appropriate, although many may disagree with it and are free to challenge it.
Instead, UpNorth redirected the dialogue with a demand that I link examples of Republicans behaving in the same manner as Obama had with his "punish the enemy" rhetoric--as if I had actually made such claim. Even though he had introduced the red herring [and was engaging in deflection] I indulged him.
Jer .
Honest. I iz confused.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:03am.
The Obama administration yesterday jettisoned the Bush-era term "enemy combatant" but maintained a broad right to detain those who provide "substantial" assistance to al-Qaeda and its associates around the globe.
Demand?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:12am.
When did "kindly link" become a demand, Jer? The only redirection is you trying to redirect the meaning of "kindly link".
And, telling his audience that the Republicans can ride in the "back of the bus" is what? Reaching across the aisle? Extending the hand of bipartisanship? Or, a crass, low attempt to dredge up yet another racial slap at those Owebowma disagrees with?
Along with Rush, and millions of others, I, too, hope he fails.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:21am.
Kindly link, I mean, kindly disregard my post to Jer.
Your reply was much better.
MD
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:41am.
When it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. There is no other construction to be reasonably placed upon it.
It was a direction to perform a specific function. Otherwise you should have stated, "Jer, I understand that you disagree with Obama's rhetoric, but, even though you did not suggest like conduct on the part of Republicans, do you know of any examples where a Republican has behaved similarly? If so, would you please link one. Thanks, your pal, UpNorth."
Jer
Thanks for
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:48am.
the form, or outline response required for anything you post, Jer. In the future, I'll certainly use it to respond to anything you put up, that i think I might want to repsond to.
You are a prince, UpNorth....
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:52am.
Your pal,
Jer
In the course
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 2:01am.
of my life, and career, I've been called worse. But usually, face to face, not from behind a keyboard. I didn't agree with them, but at least I respected them for doing it in the open, face to face.
I'd love to continue this, but sleep beckons, it's about a half hour past 0 dark hundred here. Good night Jer, enjoy.
P.S. Sorry I forgot to use your form response, already.
No worries. Sleep beckons
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 2:03am.
No worries. Sleep beckons here also. You have a good night, too.
Jer
Yeah, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:19am.
"kindly link" , as requested by UpNorth, is a very ham-fisted demand, all right.
I can see why your hackles get raised.
(Really helps with the deflection, doesn't it.)
MD
Wrong again, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:31am.
UpNorth obviously intended "kindly" in the same sense that "kindly" is used when someone says "kindly kiss my ass". I trust that clarifies it for you.
Jer
Really, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:43am.
now you're reading minds and assigning motives to people, just by devining what they say in a post, without seeing the expression on their face? I stand in awe, sir, you are an eagle in the midst of a flock of crows. Why, I can't imagine why Owebowma hasn't tapped you to take Hillary's place. With your gift, the U.S. would achieve what Owebowma's followers wanted, that we would be loved by all and feared by none, as you would be able to tell the Pres what everyone was thinking, before they even thought it.
Kindly take this as a compliment, sir, as that's how it's intended. But you already know that, don't you?
I iz confused again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:00am.
We still have a front and a half open in the GWOT. What do we call the guys that are actually trying to kill us?
NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Neither Napolitano or Obama know it,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:31am.
B ut
U sing
L eftist
L anguage
S upports &
H ides
I nsidious
T errorism
MD
Confused I iz honest.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/29/2010 - 1:07am.
In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "
Thanks for the ammo Obama!
Submitted by z7e1r3o on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 3:44pm.
That ought to be a useful sound bite/video clip once 2012 rolls around.
------
"The point of war isn't to die for your country....it's to make the enemy die for his."