The American Spectator

genek1953| 10.27.08 @ 8:14PM

In this commentary Obama neither embraces nor repudiates redistribution, he merely opines that pursuing it through the courts was an ineffective strategy that was a bad choice of the civil rights movement because the courts are not as radically activist as their conservative detractors make them out to be. It hardly takes a legal expert to get this point.

This episode illustrates more than anything else the low comprehension of the average person and the hazards of trying to conduct an intellectual discussion of ideas in a society where intellect and ideas no longer seem to be valued.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 8:40PM

Since when should the Supreme Court be called upon to make economic decisions as to the redistribution of wealth? That is the fundamental question that I have.

What it points out to me is that (1) Obama believes in a court system that should be used for social reform and "justice", that he doesn't believe in the framer's original intent, and (2) that he sees social activists (i.e., ACORN) as a means for "redistributive change."

J. Peter Freire| 10.27.08 @ 8:40PM

Genek1953,

We're certainly happy to have you on our website. Your ability to cut through all the bull and provide us with an "intellectual discussion of ideas" is something we desperately needed. Indeed, there we were, devaluing intellect and ideas, and you came and spoiled all the fun. By the way: Isn't "of ideas" redundant in that sentence? Can't it be simply an "intellectual discussion"? I leave that to your (keener) judgment.

More to your point, Obama doesn't merely lament the attempt to use the courts as a distraction. He then goes on to assert that yes, redistribution is *important* to accomplish, just that the courts aren't a good way of going about it. Please listen to the audio at the times I've pointed out, and *then* comment.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 8:55PM

genek1953,

I found your post dripping with condescension. You incorrectly conclude that Obama doesn't favor redistribution. In fact, there are several time line markers that serve to underscore his narrative on redistributive (social) justice. This 2001 tape is but one such marker. That is why the unwashed conservative detractors have the alarm sounding.

It doesn't take that much intellect to judge Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber as redistribution. People, like yourself, like to point to Joe the Plumber and comment that he won't realize his American Dream of exceeding $250k and therefore it is a mute point. However, it was what Obama said, not who Joe the Plumber is, that is enlightening. This is marker two in the Obama redistribution narrative.
The third marker is Rev. Wright, where Obama had such a deep and lasting association. Rev. Wright and Father Pleger were all about social (redistributive) justice.
Finally, in his own book, "Dreams of My Father,' Obama carried Rev. Wriight's quote, "white folks need runs a world in need."
Sometimes it is hard for us "conservative detractors" to get through to you superior educated types because we find you incurious.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 8:57PM

correct quote "white folks greed runs a world in need."

James Abbott| 10.27.08 @ 9:02PM

Is it seriously not possible to have a rational discussion and disagree on things without the snarky attacks?

I want my party to come together and take down the Democrat trifecta that no doubt will dominate the next 2(4) years. But the most vicious attacks are between "conservatives". Why can't we call a spade a spade and admit that our candidate is not who we all would have picked, or his veep, but we need to make the best of it and hope we can put something better together? I'm sure they're loving this feeding frenzy on each other. Maybe I'm off point, but I like the info, I love the ammunition, believe me, just not the hate, man!

genek1953| 10.27.08 @ 9:05PM

What I said was that Obama neither embraced nor repudiated redistribution *in this commentary.*

And "intellectual discussion of ideas" (as opposed to physics, mathematics or other subjects in which the topics are often not abstract "ideas") is not redundant.

Thank you both for making my point about low comprehension.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 9:39PM

James;

Sorry but I missed the "hate". I'm sure your not doing the Rodney King "can't we all get along" but let's be realistic.

We don't need to hold hands in lock-step and disagreement is the mother's milk of ingenuity.

If it wasn't for questioning the judgment of others, there would be no evolution. You have heard of the concept of creative destruction, no?

ruth| 10.27.08 @ 9:39PM

How do you know when a liberal is lying? His lips are moving. Sorry, i just couldn't help it. I am just so sick of their BS.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 9:41PM

genek1953,

And thank you for underscoring my point about your dripping with condescension.

Joey Plugs| 10.27.08 @ 9:49PM

How are they going to explain away Obama's comparing America to Nazi Germany? It was taken out of context? It's on Little Green Footballs.

James Abbott| 10.27.08 @ 9:51PM

Captain America,

I'm hoping we're making the same point, rational discussions and disagreements without snark.

Absolutely, and truly it would eliminate much of the joy of life to have nothing to discuss and argue and debate on. But I think most of the people here pretty much have the same ideals, values, opinions, for the most part; I just hate to see anyone blasted for disagreeing when that's what it's all about, right?

Sorry, listening to MSNBC and my ears are exploding, my apologies for non-coherence here, just wanted to thank you for the reply and hope I made sense; I think we need to be supportive of each other and try to reason vs. slam; there's plenty of major warfare to do with people on the other side!

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 9:51PM

genek1953 et al:

A portion of the transcript in question...

OBAMA: 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.
-----------
The first sentence clearly introduced Obama's views on successes and failures and proceeds to lament that it never ventured into redistribution of wealth.

full transcript:

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2584303.aspx

ruth| 10.27.08 @ 10:05PM

James, perhaps most of the people on this thread are reasonable, but i've read several exchanges on AmSpecBlog recently that set my hair on fire. Lots of trolls.

Captain America| 10.27.08 @ 10:14PM

James, I agree with you and Ruth. My concern is that there is a divide amongst conservatives and some disagreement is tolerable. The divide I'm referring to is between the self-proclaimed "intellectual conservatives" and those who are presumably less so.

Watching MSNBC is a difficult challenge. Unfortunately, CNN has morphed into the same market segment slanting left.

Best wishes to you.

ruth| 10.27.08 @ 10:36PM

Oh no, not Keith Olberclown--just can't do it. Too many other unpleasant things i HAVE to do!

Campbell| 10.27.08 @ 10:39PM

Notice to All Employees

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.”

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work those extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn't apply to any of us.

4. The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.”

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's “good to spread the wealth.” Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.”

6. The last few people who were hired should clean- out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you extended unemployment, free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

James Abbott| 10.27.08 @ 10:54PM

My daughter, she tells me I have to prove I'm fair and balanced; it was actually Rachel Maddow------ at least when Buchanan is on he's entertaining. I don't agree with a word Maddow says but she's not so.... Olbermann I guess. Always good to know where the other side stands; so I tolerate, (when she's home!!) What she doesn't know won't hurt her. thanks guys, good exchange.

Purl Gurl| 10.28.08 @ 1:55AM

Only true surprise I find about American presidential elections this year is a vast majority of Obama supporters are adamantly bent on rendering America a pseudo Marxist nation. This call for rendering America a socialist welfare nation by Obama and his supporters, this truly does surprise me.

Quite ironic an American Indian, like me, an American Indian who has every right to "hate" America, is fighting to defend our Spirit of America, fighting to defend our American ideals, fighting to defend our founding principles of Freedom and Democracy.

Appears there is a Free Lunch in life, appears half or more of Americans expect a Free Lunch paid for by hard working successful Americans.

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Give me all I want for free, I am an American! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! I do not have to work for a living, I am an American!

Gimme my welfare check, Barack!

When I was born, my peoples, we Indians, were not granted American citizenship, were not granted a right to vote. We fought long and hard for citizenship and a right to vote. We won.

Today, Americans are fighting for welfare checks in their mailboxes.

I believe I will pack up my family, head back to our Indian lands, then lead a life of honest hard work, of independence and of pride.

Our family enjoys pride, we will never become welfare recipients; we always have and always will earn our lunch.

We are Americans, not Marxists.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

ruth| 10.28.08 @ 2:35AM

Purl Gurl, do you think there are still enough Americans left who feel sorrow for what is unfolding in front of us and are willing to stand up for the integrity of our nation? I feel ashamed that this is happening on my (our) watch. So many of our ancestors have sacrificed so much for our freedom. I guess we'll find out if we are worthy of their sacrifices in the days ahead.

Mike| 10.28.08 @ 3:07AM

Firstly, 'redistribution' in the narrow legal sense Obama was talking about is "how do we get money into the school system" not "how do we punish the rich and give handouts to the poor". Do any of you have any clue what you're talking about? The progressive income tax, which funds social, educational and medical programs is closer to "wealth redistribution" than what Obama is talking about. Every program that benefits anybody in this country is funded in large part, by necessity, by people other than those who benefit. You're saying we should cancel social security? We should get rid of the progressive income tax? Let's can Medicare too, right? While we're at it, I hear the government has used my hard-earned money to subsidize school lunches! I have no children, why should I be paying for that??

Secondly, we have been a socialist nation for a long time, at least in part. It's been "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich" for decades. It's only being branded "socialism" for the first time now because it's being applied to the demand side rather than the supply side.

If tax cuts = socialism, then Reagan was the biggest socialist in American history. Oh, wait, that's not socialism; he cut taxes for the rich, not the middle and lower classes. When the rest of us subsidize the rich, it's not called socialism, it's called "economic stimulus"... which worked real well; it stimulated moving our manufacturing to China and our jobs to India, it stimulated unprecedented growth in the income gap between the top 5% and the rest of us.

Yeah, let's prop up the bigwigs, let's bailout AIG so they can have their $400,000 corporate retreat, let's reward wall street for the biggest business failure in 70 years. As long as the poor have to fend for themselves we're not pinkos.

ruth| 10.28.08 @ 3:37AM

We've been socialist for a long time, Reagan just tried to stem the tide. Obama's policies are a disaster for this country. Tax cuts for those who create jobs is not the same as tax cuts for the poor, that's wealth redistribution or socialism. I'd rather have a job than a handout. How disgusting if we cease to be a meritocracy.

Mike| 10.28.08 @ 4:05AM

I am a Dem who reads conservative websites to balance my view of the world. I get angry at Dems when they make BS arguments or personal attacks, because they don't work. So, as a happy winner this election season, let me encourage most of the posters here to please, keep up the kinds of posts you are making.

I mean, calling people socialists because of the "redistribution" argument. C'mon. Name me a Repub who hasn't supported redistribution. You can't, because EVERY tax is a form of redistribution. Having a police and fire department is a form of redistribution. So every time you use the word socialist, you lose more of the middle class than you win. But if you want your candidates to keep spitting out "socialist" claims, I'm ok with that. Jiminy Christmas, the most socialist political move in the last decade was Palin's taking of the oil companies' money in Alaska.

Ditto with the terrorist claims. Those commercials worked wonders for Obama. Please run more of those in four years.

Hey, Ruth ... Good joke on the lying liberal. Here's one for you. How can you tell a Repub is a stupid campaigner? He/she is breathing.

Why do you think we kept hearing about the media being unfair to McCain/Palin but didn't hear so much about Obama attacking them, and why do you think the public saw McCain as unfairly and repeatedly attacking Obama? Because Obama didn't, McCain did, and in doing so McCain ran a stupid campaign. Which is why he is losing. So, again, keep up the snarking. It has turned out great for people like me.

Charles Martel| 10.28.08 @ 4:54AM

Hi, Mike. I am a conservative to reads conservative websites to find out what's really going on because otherwise I am exposed only to the Obama chorus. As one who is looking forward to seeing, if only in my mind's eye, that smug grin wiped off your face next Tuesday night, I want to encourage you, please, to keep up the kind of post you just left here.

When you say things like that the police and fire departments are a form of socialist redistribution, you remind middle class readers that you really don't have a clue about the real world and that the goal of the Left is to obfuscate long enough to get us to acquiesce to your schemes.

Conservatives acknowledge the need for taxation in order to support the legitimate functions of government. What Barack Obama talks about is using the tax code purely as an instrument of social engineering, punitive to the productive, beneficent to those lagging behind.

It's certainly *a* way to achieve power, because as English speakers have known since the Dark Ages, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.

This point will be driven home every day for the rest of this campaign in places that you and your kind cannot afford to lose, and for the kinds of people that you are not persuading.

These are people who have the good sense not to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. They see such an animal, and they think "breed more geese." You look at her and think "10 minutes per pound at 350 degrees."

So, again, keep up the premature gloating. It will make your tears taste all the sweeter.

Deborah| 10.28.08 @ 6:27AM

Charles -- Thanks for your brilliant reply to Mike. The truth about "redistribution" is that you punish the achievers and reward those who don't achieve, so you'll get more who don't achieve. Just as what you tax you get less of...less production, less entrepreneuralism, fewers companies willing to stay in the country, fewer jobs (except those created by gov't, which means more taxes, less production...) All this is about, to address those on both the left and right, is power. Giving goodies to the masses so they'll vote for you. Don't worry about the future, just pass along the bill to your kids and grandkids. If one cares about his children, he would vote against this kind of crap. I guess those on the left don't have children whose futures they worry about? This is the change they want? This makes no sense to a thinking person.

Purl Gurl| 10.28.08 @ 10:04AM

Ruth comments, " Purl Gurl, do you think there are still enough Americans left who feel sorrow for what is unfolding in front of us and are willing to stand up for the integrity of our nation?"

I do not know what to think, Ruth. You and I are of an age we are watching the rise and fall of America. When we were young, we believed America would always be a rising star. Now older, we are witnessing America's shining light dim and fade. I always believed Freedom and Democracy would prevail within our world. I see clearly now this may not be true.

Obama made a target of our youth for reason; young people are gullible and impressionable.

However, our nation's wealth does not lie within the hands of the young. Obama is in for a surprise. Obama can attempt to redistribute wealth but will not have much luck. In the end, Obama will bankrupt our America.

Reason for this is many of us who work hard and are successful will move our money around, will seek a variety of tax shelters. Obama can only tax earned income each fiscal year. Our family, like millions of families, will reduce our tax exposure to a level we pay minimal taxes or no taxes. A majority of us will reduce, almost remove, our American tax base. Net effect is we will deny Obama our wealth; he will have no wealth to seize then redistribute.

Obama can work at rendering America a pseudo Marxist society but without a healthy tax base he will only succeed in bankrupting our country.

Obama will only lead our country to economic disaster.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

Purl Gurl| 10.28.08 @ 10:22AM

Mike comments, "Do any of you have any clue what you're talking about?"

Yes, we do. This is why many of us enjoy comfortable wealth. Our clue is hard work, sacrifice and a strict budget, leads to comfortable wealth. Those of us who enjoy comfortable wealth do so because we have a clue.

Do you, Mike, know of any welfare recipients who are wealthy?

Before you stick a silver spoon in my rear, our family was born to dire poverty. We worked our way out of poverty. We worked hard, we took extraordinary risks along our way and above all, we made use of good common sense. A part of good common sense is not spending more than you earn.

Reason for our financial sector crisis is Americans spend more than they earn which Wall Street Fat Cats use to their advantage. Those Americans who fell into this financial trap did so because they are lazy, spoiled and not well educated or, at least, are lacking good common sense.

This lack of good common sense is well exemplified by Obama supporters begging for welfare checks thinking they will be better off. Some even think they will become wealthy living off welfare.

Again, have you ever come across a welfare recipient who is wealthy?

Obama supporters are just such because they are typically lazy, spoiled, not real bright and believe welfare is the answer to our nations's woes.

Those people are in for a bit of harsh reality.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

ruth| 10.28.08 @ 10:39AM

Mike, you are a typical liberal; no sense of humor. Where's the 'happy winner'? Just because you win an election doesn't make you a winner. Socialism is redistribution of wealth, that's not hate speech. Obama is a big-time socialist, I just don't know yet if he is a Marxist. Purl Gurl, you are right, Obama's policies will be a disaster for our country. His class warfare campaign has been very divisive, he is no uniter.

Purl Gurl| 10.28.08 @ 11:05AM

Ruth adds to reader value, "His class warfare campaign has been very divisive, he is no uniter."

Most certainly. Obama has created the most divisive class warfare of our nation since the American Revolution.

Our Revolution, our kicking the British out, our Boston Tea Party, all of this was about taxation without representation. Obama is setting himself up to represent only a segment of our society.

Obama claims to represent the middle class and the poor. This is pure deceit on the part of Obama; he is simply promising welfare checks in exchange for votes. Obama promises to lift up our middle class and poor. This will never happen under an Obama regime.

Obama has declared war upon those of us who are hard working and successful. I am not writing the middle class and poor are not hard working; no insult is intended.

Obama believes taking money from the successful then giving this money to others will cure our economic problem. This is plumb stupid. This socialist philosophy does NOT create jobs nor create new wealth. This philosophy only moves money around, only plays musical chairs.

The only cure for our economic problem is creation of new jobs, increasing pay scales, improving productivity and grabbing a larger share of the global market for goods and services.

Adding benefit to this is decreasing government spending and effecting programs which help people with health care costs along with helping people become better educated.

Taking money from the affluent to give to the less affluent will not create new jobs, will not raise pay scales and will not raise our productivity. Nor will this help with health care costs nor help with affordable good education.

Obama playing money musical chairs will prove a horrible financial disaster.

McCain is firm but fair. McCain is offering good common sense.

McCain is offering creation of jobs and opportunity. However, there is a caveat. McCain is saying to America, "I will provide opportunity but you must be willing to work to enjoy benefit."

Opportunity and hard work, this is our American way.

Obama's welfare and laziness, this is an insult to our traditional American values.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation