Smells Like Socialist Spirit; Update: Team O responds

posted at 7:24 am on October 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama’s redistributionism.  Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale.  In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended.

Stop the ACLU has the transcript (via Michelle):

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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

People have assumed that Obama merely offered a rhetorical stumble, and Obama and Joe Biden have strenuously attacked anyone that claimed he intended to bring about radical socialist change.  This sounds very much like socialism and radical change, and there is no mistaking the context of this statement.  While Obama recognizes in this passage that the judiciary doesn’t have the “structure” to make radical changes to the Constitution, he doesn’t sound at all happy about it.

Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates.  He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement.  That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama’s vision.

In fact, as Jeff Goldstein notes, that’s almost classic Marxism, and it would leave America somewhere to the left of 1970s France:

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew…

The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens.  For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State.  That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx’s classic philosophy of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.  That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.

The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election.

Update: One more clarifying thought is in order.  Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”.  That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual.  The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly.

Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely.  And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else.

Update II: Via Jake Tapper at ABC (who gives us a nice link), Team Obama responds.  I’m including the entire statement, to avoid more accusations of context shifting:

“In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. “Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”

Burton continues: “In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point – and what he called a tragedy – was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.

“As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up – not from the corridors of Washington,” Burton says. “He worked in struggling communities to improve the economic situation of people on the South Side of Chicago, who lost their jobs when the steel plants closed. And he’s worked as a legislator to provide tax relief and health care to middle-class families. And so Obama’s point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process.”

I’d say that the first hint that the initial analysis was correct was in Obama’s estimation of the Warren Court — one of the most activist in history — as somehow not radical in its nature.  Second, in the quote itself, Obama calls the failure to “bring about redistributive change” a tragedy.  That doesn’t sound like someone who hails the court’s limitation on redistributionism — or, to use Obama’s analogy, liked the fact that the court allowed him to eat at the lunch counter but didn’t pick up the tab for him as well.

The point about the courts is really secondary.  In this passage, Obama identifies himself as a redistributionist, even if he’s saying that the courts are not going to be a successful venue for it.  Despite Burton’s little bit of misdirection, it’s very clear that Obama is highly sympathetic to “redistributive change” — and with an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the courts won’t be necessary to effect that redistributive change anyway.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Yes, this tape has definitely thrown the Obama camp off it’s message. I just heard him giving a whole new speech to a bunch of kids:
.
Sen. Obama, “In the beginning we were all fish, okay? swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby and the retard baby was different so he got to live and then retard fish goes on to make more retard babies. Then one day a retard baby-fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish-hands /*waves wrists limply*/ and it had butt-sex with a squirrel or something and made this: retard-frog-squirrel and then that had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog and then this monkey-fish-frog had butt-sex with that monkey & that monkey had a mutant-retard-baby that screwed another monkey and that made you. So there you go. Congratulations! You are the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel.”
.
They really took a helluva blow! Either that or I fell asleep and woke up during South Park and fell back to sleep. Come to think of it, yeah, it was Mr/s. Garrison not BO. Sorry. My bad.

*******NEWSFLASH:
REPORTER BARBARA WEST IS ON O’REILLY TONIGHT!****

NightmareOnKStreet on October 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Terrye on October 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Just ask her once Obama takes all the rich’s money where is going to go to get the money to keep the checks coming? He will go down the ladder until everyone is poor like her and then the checks stop.

unseen on October 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM

If the MSM ever starts picking this up you can stick a fork in Obama.
Oldnuke on October 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Yeah, but with the ‘skinhead plot to kill 0bama’ being made public just before the evening news, the MSM will have a good excuse to never mention it. (Not that they have ever needed an excuse.)

90% of the voting public will ever hear about this. There might have been a chance if the skinhead plot hadn’t been unsealed at such an incredibly convenient moment; but now there is no chance.

LegendHasIt on October 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM

So what do you think-

Senator Marx or Karl Obama?

drjohn on October 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM

The irony here is that voters motivated by anger at the decline in their wealth seem about to elect a president who has promised to embark on wealth-destroying policies.

This from Michael Barone’s latest column. Call this the Republican, Thomas Frank What is the Matter with Kansas election. Perhaps “whats the matter with Fairfax, VA?” Republicans believe that tax cuts stimulate economic activity and thus increase government revenue.

Obama and Democrats believe that tax cuts just give money to the wealthy and have no positive impact on government revenues.

I guess to me it just seems a disconnect or perhaps the tide has turned against tax cuts and limited government.

Angry Dumbo on October 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM

My approach to fighting socialism is not to invoke Marxism with its desire for violent revolution.

thuja on October 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Obama’s brand of Marxism is Neo-Gramscian Marxism. Gramsci pondered why the proletariat never rose up in violent revolution the way Marx said they would. He realized that the “revolution” would have to be a peaceful struggle of ideas from the bottom up, or the inside out. He said capitalism can only exist through the oppressed classes’ agreement to buy into the ruling class’s hegemony, and the way to break the hegemony is to form coalitions among oppressed minority groups until they are strong enough to form a counter-hegemonic culture and deconstruct the existing hegemony from within.

If you look at the page on Obama’s web site where they have all the little variations of the “O” logo, one for each oppressed group (none for straight white males), you see evidence of Gramscian Marxism at work.

Here’s a great read on Gramsci and Tocqueville and the culture war in America.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM

guess to me it just seems a disconnect or perhaps the tide has turned against tax cuts and limited government.

Angry Dumbo on October 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM

It is more anger at corruption. Voters are tired of getting the shaft as they see it. be it illegal immigration taking their jobs, out soucring, higher fees and taxes at the local level stangant wages. the corruption is causing the trickle down theiory to not work. Under Reagan it worked because the savings was passed down in the form of lower prices or higher wages but now the rich have other ways to aviod passing the savings along. Like hiring illegal wporkers, moving out of country, forming monoploies or other anti-competiton.

the problem is that Obama is not talking about these issues and instead is talking about a tax cut 9welfare payments) to solve the issues. And McCain sadly does not see the issues either. Palin gets it kind of out of all 4 of them.

McCain needs to talk how tax cuts can keep jobs here, how border security can raise wages, how drilling, and energy can bring jobs home. etc.

tax cuts is a short hand for it and the voters understand there are bigger issues that the canidates are not talking about.

unseen on October 27, 2008 at 6:24 PM

OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

unseen on October 27, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Did it sound to anyone else like BHO was just repeating from memory (with a mistake or two) when he said:

the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

The way he ran through this contorted sentence and then changed his voice and inflection seemed very odd to me. No big deal, just odd.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 6:41 PM

The way he ran through this contorted sentence and then changed his voice and inflection seemed very odd to me. No big deal, just odd.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Sounded to me like he was rattling off an explanation of Gramscian Marxism (which I mentioned above at 6:19), which I’m sure he has formulated in his head, and suddenly realized that the radio audience would likely have no idea what he was talking about and changed directions.

The phrase “coalition of powers through which you bring about redistribute change” is practically out of a textbook on Neo-Gramscian Marxism. The guy is clearly heavily indoctrinated in the stuff.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM

That pesky John Boehner’s at it again.. hehe.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4549793.shtml
Check out the final sentence; O camp’s response… ROFLMAO.

pambi on October 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Sounded to me like he was rattling off an explanation of Gramscian Marxism (which I mentioned above at 6:19)

Yes, to a tee.

The phrase “coalition of powers through which you bring about redistribute change” is practically out of a textbook on Neo-Gramscian Marxism. The guy is clearly heavily indoctrinated in the stuff.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM

That’s for sure, but to be memorizing whole lines of political explanations is just really weird. Actual pieces of work to memorize is one thing (calling for attribution, of course) but ideological explanations/descriptions, which are so contorted and contrived that they sound intelligent to no one who has made it out of 5th grade … Whoa!

BTW, good link. I started reading it and will finish later. For me it’s all quite simple: Individualism versus Collectivism

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM

90% of the voting public will ever hear about this. LegendHasIt on October 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM

D’OH!

90% of the voting public will NEVER hear about this.

LegendHasIt on October 27, 2008 at 7:28 PM

That’s for sure, but to be memorizing whole lines of political explanations is just really weird.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Odd, I agree. I imagine he has deliberately composed and rehearsed it with the contorted language like this many times so that he always remembers to use the code words and phrases instead of the red-flag words that alert people to his real agenda (like “community organizations” for socialist agitators, or “coalition of powers” for oppressed minority groups united to undermine the existing power structure, or “redistributive change” for socialism/Marxism).

aero on October 27, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Gramsci advocated a long-term approach instead. He thought the only way to conquer the West was to destroy the West’s political and religious values through moral subversion and reinterpret Western history in such a way that makes it look evil and corrupt. Gramsci knew this was a long term goal, since those people of his own generation were exposed to Western values and would be unwilling to give them up. Gramsci knew though that future generations could be influenced IF there was a way of exposing them to the proper propaganda. Gramsci, in a shrewd mix of Machiavelli, Marx and Proverbs 22:6, advocated attacking the children through the schools in order to – Pied Piper-like – lead them into communism.

JustTruth101 on October 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM

I’m almost sure Bill Burton, Obama Press agent, told Barack Hussein Obama, “You damn socialist, Marxist fool; why did you say those stupid things and let them record your socialist ideas? You let the cat out of the bag with Joe the plumber; you were just acting cockier than usual. Now people are going to know for sure you’re a damn socialist, Barack. Just listen to the communist ideas you’re spewing out of your repugnant mouth, Barack. Oh, my. I have to find someone else to blame. Hell, let’s blame Fox News. But I gotta tell you, Barack, the public is going to know now that you are nothing but a radical marxist.”

2008. The year The One … Lost.

AdrianS on October 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM

I think y’all are right..I never heard of Gramsci before, but check out just the wikipedia page…

JustTruth101 on October 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Gramsci also said that Marxists would have to find a way to offer Marxism itself as a replacement for religion. Marxism could and would, he argued, fulfill the psychological need for spiritual fulfillment and wean the masses off the panacea of religion and the iron influence of the Church (which reinforces the ruling hegemony).

It appears that our modern leftists have chosen environmentalism as their alternative to religion. But the Gramscian principle is working – the Cult of Global Warmingism is indeed functioning as a secular substitute for religion and is making its followers much more vulnerable to Marxist-style gradual government reconstruction around the world. It also very effectively fulfills the Gramscian recommendation to rewrite the history of the West to make us seem evil to ourselves. We, by way of our corrupted ruling hegemony, are the problem with the world. We, meaning our ruling hegemony, must be brought down. And who better to bring us down than US?

aero on October 27, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Sent the link to my Obamination loving daughter this morning. Now I am in a “rage” according to her, and she told me she is supporting D’hobama’s change “because this country is in the toilet.”

So, I guess I am going to rage on until the whole world hears this!!!

Yup, it didn’t make me contrite.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on October 27, 2008 at 7:41 PM

The country is this close to electing a Daley-machine bred Chicago politician. How comforting is that? City boss politics, union backing and socialist “reform” go hand in hand in hand here with strong-arm, Soviet era political intimidation, widespread corruption, and institutionalization of a “noble” political class. Guess what? None of us are going to be vlasti. We’re the worst kind of revisionists. We’ll be lucky if we get sent to a gulag in North Dakota for reeducation.

creekspecter on October 27, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Just think, bloggers and commenters figured out this theory within 24 hours of that 2001 tape breaking. Imagine if the media had only done its job months ago how much more we would know now. And to think, with the exception of FoxNews, they are STILL NOT doing the job! If Obambi wins, which I now think will not happen, it WILL be the fault of the NYT, LAT, CNN, ABC, and CBS for failing to report.

JustTruth101 on October 27, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I think y’all are right..I never heard of Gramsci before, but check out just the wikipedia page…

JustTruth101 on October 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Gramscian-style Marxism is patient and insidious. And it has heavily influenced leaders of the modern Left.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 7:44 PM

So, I guess I am going to rage on until the whole world hears this!!! Yup, it didn’t make me contrite. -InTheBellyoftheBeast on October 27, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Try not to be too hard on her when McCain wins.

ManlyRash on October 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM

The date: November 4, 2008. You live in a swing state and you go to bed pleased because you stuck it to McCain and the rest of the Republicans. You voted for Barr or someone else or sat it out or even voted for Obama figuring that after he proves to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter, 2010 will bring a Republican Congress back and 2012 a true conservative.

November 5, 2008: It’s morning in America and not only is Barack Obama President, but the Democrats have a filibuster proof Senate and Nancy Pelosi has enough Democrats in the House where she can not only marginalize the Republicans, but also keep her Blue Dogs in line. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President-elect Obama announce their New New Deal. You rub with your hands with glee as you say to yourself, “Now everyone is going to see I was right. They’re going to make such a mess of this country that people will be begging for a return to conservative government in 2010.

The First six months: Sure enough, the Dems push through their social programs: Welfare for the non-taxpayers–although to pay for it, they had to adjust the floor for the rate increases from 250, 000 to 100,000 a year, but the non-taxpaying population is getting its handouts and they’re being constantly reminded by the Democratic controlled media where those handouts are coming from. You try to tune into Rush, but he’s off the air–Fairness Doctrine. You try to go to HotAir or Michelle’s site, but you can’t now–The Internet Fairness Act. On the international front, Obama announces that the US will pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan in six months.

The Second Six Months: Sure enough, the Obama campaign is tested elsewhere in the world and retreats: Iran explodes its nukes–the Israelis were informed by Obama that any preemptive action on their part would be met by an international response. Israel is now isolated and alone. China has reabsorbed Taiwan as Iraq becomes an Iranian client state and Afghanistan and Pakistan both fall under Taliban rule. At home, the Democrats pass the Voting Reform act of 2009 calling for the end to all identification checks on voter registration, same day registration/voting, permitting convicted and incarcerated felons to vote, allowing alien residents of more than 2 years to vote, and lowering the voting age to 16. The Dems also pass the Immigration Reform Act granting instant citizenship and amnesty to any illegal alien who can prove 3 or more years of residency. These new voters hasten to register Democratic.

The 2010 elections: Thanks to their newly made client voters and the ease in ballot box stuffing, the Democrats not only again sweep the Congressional elections, but they also get that magic number of states–yes, now the Democrats control the state legislatures in 3/4 of the states.

February 1, 2011: Barack Obama makes a televised speech where, siting the abysmal economy and the many foreign and social challenges and ills facing the United States, he says that our current Constitution is no longer able to meet the dire circumstances of the 21st century world–that it is a relic of a bygone era and that we need a new constitution for a new era and so, he calls for a Constitutional Convention. With 3/4 of the states under Democratic control, he easily gets what he wants–a new Constitution.

6:00 AM, October 28, 2008: Your alarm bell goes off, waking you up.

A wild nightmare scenario? I hope so…but it could happen…

Matt Helm on October 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Obama Compared America to Nazi Germany
Politics | Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:10:01 pm PST

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31718_Obama_Compared_America_to_Nazi_Germany

Mercy4Me on October 27, 2008 at 8:40 PM

How about those of us who’s ancestors weren’t even in this country when slavery existed?

crazy_legs on October 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM

You’re willing to live with the consequences of the ideals and legacy of the Founding Fathers–this country’s noble legacy. Am I right? Then you must realize that this country’s legacy has some not-so-noble parts of its legacy. Problem is that the legacy can’t be split into.

baldilocks on October 27, 2008 at 8:45 PM

we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution”

There’s your bumper sticker.

DFCtomm on October 27, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Well, “Marxist” is the second-highest ranked buzzword at Twitter Elections right now. So at least among internet denizens, the Obama audio story has gained some traction. Of course, most of the tweeters seem to have reached the conclusion that the word “Marxist” entered the debate just because the Republitards are making yet another completely unfounded accusation against The One. Not many seem to have listened to the audio before discounting the possibility that Obama might in fact have actually said something Marxist.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Crypto-Marxists of the world, unite… and lie your asses off.

Until after the election.

profitsbeard on October 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Here’s a great read on Gramsci and Tocqueville and the culture war in America.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM

It will take some more time to digest the John Fonte article, but my initial reaction is quite negative. I am anti-socialist and I support America in terms of foreign policy, but I am a gay Jew. There is no way I’m going to agree to any argument that makes defeating gay marriage or gay rights important to defending capitalism. It’s just too silly of an argument, and I don’t think one needs to be a gay Jew to see that it is silly.

thuja on October 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM

thuja on October 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM

+1

On another note… the most shocking thing about Obama’s interview is his assertion that the Warren court wasn’t radical enough. LOL.

Lehosh on October 27, 2008 at 9:24 PM

A wild nightmare scenario? I hope so…but it could happen…

Matt Helm on October 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM

I had to look at the calendar – I thought it was already Oct. 31st, as scary as that scenario is.

Good work Matt… how’s the “wrecking crew“?

electric-rascal on October 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM

At home, the Democrats pass the Voting Reform act of 2009 calling for the end to all identification checks on voter registration, same day registration/voting, permitting convicted and incarcerated felons to vote, allowing alien residents of more than 2 years to vote, and lowering the voting age to 16. The Dems also pass the Immigration Reform Act granting instant citizenship and amnesty to any illegal alien who can prove 3 or more years of residency. These new voters hasten to register Democratic.

If the voting got that silly, we’d all have to play the same game.

CNN 2012 election coverage: Bill Schnieder reporting. This has been an amazing turn-out for the general election. 345 million votes counted with only 120 million registered voters. Truly amazing. A record year we can all be proud of.

hawkdriver on October 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM

It will take some more time to digest the John Fonte article, but my initial reaction is quite negative. I am anti-socialist and I support America in terms of foreign policy, but I am a gay Jew. There is no way I’m going to agree to any argument that makes defeating gay marriage or gay rights important to defending capitalism. It’s just too silly of an argument, and I don’t think one needs to be a gay Jew to see that it is silly.

thuja on October 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Hmmm. I didn’t get that out of the article. Fonte cited the example of businesses granting employees’ gay partners health benefits as a Gramscian trend (i.e. changing the traditional/hegemonic rules to give an oppressed minority group a path to power that might challenge the dominant group). He then states that Tocquevillians, who tend toward a belief in absolute moral truths, often inspired by religious dogma, would likely object to any such Gramscian tendencies and challenge to their value system. But I don’t think Fonte argued that defeating gay rights (or any sub-group’s rights) was necessary to defend capitalism. His thesis was more to establish the existence of these two enduring opposing social philosophies and to prove their ongoing clashes through such examples. He does indicate that Gramscian socialism is advancing in the United States even after the death of economic Marxism, and he does not seem to think this is necessarily a good thing. But I wouldn’t extend that to him thinking that gays should not get married for the sake of the preservation of capitalism. That doesn’t seem to follow from his thesis.

It’s a complex article, and it has been awhile since I first read it, so perhaps I forgot something or missed something. But I linked to it primarily because I was intrigued by the Gramsci vs. Tocqueville idea to define the underlying conflict in modern American culture. I do think that Obama categorically rejects the idea of American exceptionalism and that McCain embraces it. Consequently, the Gramsci/Tocqueville method of categorization applies exceptionally well to this election.

aero on October 27, 2008 at 10:14 PM

If the voting got that silly, we’d all have to play the same game.

CNN 2012 election coverage: Bill Schnieder reporting. This has been an amazing turn-out for the general election. 345 million votes counted with only 120 million registered voters. Truly amazing. A record year we can all be proud of.

hawkdriver on October 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Well…I took a few artistic liberties for storytelling purposes with the lowering of the age limit ;) but the threat is a real one. The removal of voter identification requirements along with same day registration/voting provides fertile ground for fraud. Also, as I know you and many others here are aware, there are many amongst Democrats who do want to make it where resident aliens can vote as well as convicted and incarcerated felons and these groups would provide a sea mass of clients for the Democrats.

Matt Helm on October 27, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Owner of Miami Dolphins wants to sell now, before BO raises cap gains tax.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-flspdolwayne27sboct27,0,1382404.story

jgapinoy on October 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM

I don’t see how this will affect the Obamatrons out there. It makes you actually think!

Mojave Mark on October 27, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement.

Seems to me Obama wants to move from the Constitution to mob rule, with him controlling the community organizing mob.

91Veteran on October 27, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Did I dream this ?? can’t find it online….
just heard on Laura Ingraham’s radio show: McCain’s PERFECT response to the O’s 2001 statement !!
It’s truly a BINGO !! (just can’t find it… arrghh
Help ?????

pambi on October 27, 2008 at 11:18 PM

I have a simple question that someone might eventually ask BHO or Crazy Joe:

What is the ideal distribution of wealth? Could you draw a graph of it for us?

If he maps out a normal distribution, essentially, then we are at capitalism. If he draws something very weird, it will send people onto the floor laughing.

I know that the graphing is out of the question (though he seemed to like those diagrams in his “community organizer” photo at the blackboard) but it would be a great question. Just, what percent should be rich? What percent poor? It would expose his idiocy immediately.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Apology if this already posted – grab today’s Mark Levin show.

October 27, 2008

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: The Democrat party is now officially the socialist party in nominating Obama. Mark explains why and how Obama has the Constitution wrong, and how he speaks of redistributive change. Furthermore, he wants to impose socialism from the bench and the ramifications of this will be disastrous. Why would we want to go away from the Constitution when it is precisely the Constitution that has allowed America to allow the maximum for human / societal development and growth? Also, why is Obama not doing any more press conferences or taking questions from the news media? Instead, he’d rather use his hundreds of millions of dollars in smear campaign ads. In the 2nd hour, Mark speaks with Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics at New School for Social Research in New York about redistribution of wealth and social security funds.

electric-rascal on October 27, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Sooooo….check THIS out.

Remember when Sen. Obama said that everyone that makes under $250K will get a tax cut?

Well according to this handy-dandy Karl Marx approved tax calculator on his own website, if you have 2 kids, pay $2000 mortage, and make $150K-$200K….guess what?

No tax cut for you.

Call me crazy, but that’s not rich is it? I mean, that’s not w e a l t h y is it?

Good grief.

(ok obviously it’s just a website, but….telling isn’t it?)

cryptojunkie on October 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM

I have a simple question that someone might eventually ask BHO or Crazy Joe:

What is the ideal distribution of wealth? Could you draw a graph of it for us?

“From each according to his means, To each according to his needs.”

The ideal is when nobody no longer has any need; thus as long as the “lower class” (the have-nots) have a need, the “upper class” (the haves) must hand over the fruits of their labors to meet their need.

Equilibrium of wealth is the socialist goal.

electric-rascal on October 27, 2008 at 11:34 PM

cryptojunkie on October 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM

oops, make that owe $2000 on your mortgage, not pay $2000/mo.

Same result if you put in $200K remaining on your mortgage.

cryptojunkie on October 27, 2008 at 11:35 PM

cryptojunkie on October 27, 2008 at 11:35 PM

A whole bunch of options around your numbers give the same “no tax cut for you” message. Too funny.

Great find.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Equilibrium of wealth is the socialist goal.

electric-rascal on October 27, 2008 at 11:34 PM

Yes. But you have to get them to admit to that. Having it directly asked would be nice. I’d love to see someone give it to Crazy Joe. He’d mangle the answer 10 ways from Tuesday. It’s be like intellectual bloodsport.

progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 11:50 PM

ANYONE ??? PLEASE ??
See: pambi on October 27, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I have both undecideds and libs in chat wanting a link, and I’m stumped !!

I know I heard it !! just can’t locate it !!
Arrgh !!

pambi on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Matt Helm on October 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Remember, too, that Obama is a HARVARD TRAINED CONSTITUTIONAL law lecturer. He knows EXACTLY what it would take to call a constitutional convention, how to conduct it, and ram through his changes.

I’ll bet y’all were thinking I was a little wac every time I link to Yuri Bezmenov…but it doesn’t sound so crazy anymore, does it?

JustTruth101 on October 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM

pambi on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM

What are you looking for?

JustTruth101 on October 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM

JustTruth101 on October 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Thanks for asking……
I’d heard a SUPER McCain response to the O’s 2001 statement… Laura Ingraham just read it on her radio show.. just can’t find a link to it… dang.
You’ll all LOVE it ! A real home run, really !!

pambi on October 28, 2008 at 12:13 AM

This election takes women and blacks back to the 60′s. It really does. think about it. Its like no progress was ever made.

johnnyU on October 28, 2008 at 12:36 AM

That pesky John Boehner’s at it again..ROFLMAO.

pambi on October 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Mr. Boehner is my kind of guy.

Domino on October 28, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Just, what percent should be rich? What percent poor?
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Well, I’m not Barack 0bama, but I’ll go into a trance and channel him giving an honest answer:

99.999% should be poor. I, and a few of my very special friends should be rich.

LegendHasIt on October 28, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs prepared some comprehensive info on Obama:

http://tiny.cc/DHCk6

Peter_P on October 28, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Peter_P on October 28, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Wow, Pam did a heck of a lot of work on putting that together.

Talk about connecting the dots!

LegendHasIt on October 28, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Flip-flop #297:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Glenn Jericho on October 28, 2008 at 4:22 AM

I still REFUSE to believe that the cell phone using, text messaging dependent, reality show watching, youth of today will turn out in droves to vote for Obama.
The 25 and under crowd NEVER turns out. I know many, many people in this age group and I can tell you emphatically, this will never happen. This is the same group than cannot pry themselves away from their toys long enough to hold a conversation much less know there is even an election going on, or take the time to stand in line at the polls….at least in the numbers being predicted.

Goodeye_Closed on October 27, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Well…

IF

Obama gets elected ACORN will make sure that in all upcoming election people will be able to vote early and by TXT.

twoarmman on October 28, 2008 at 6:16 AM

Deal. McCain wins, you go and never come back. McCain loses (which he won’t, but let’s say for the sake of the bet that he does) I leave and never come back.

ManlyRash on October 27, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Don’t do it Manly! McCain WILL win… but if he doesn’t we will need you around here.

twoarmman on October 28, 2008 at 6:22 AM

UPDATE from DALE IN ATLANTA:

Wow, unfreaking-believeable!

I thought after all this time, with all this attention, with all the news coverage, with all the attention to the subject on this Blog, it couldn’t happen!

But, my $15.00 Contribution to The One, The Messiah, the Marxist-Muslim, Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT); officially CLEARED my Bank this morning, and now belongs to history!

That was $15.00 “donation” I made with my Debit/Bank Card last week, in the name of “Heywood JaBlowmee” using a completely false address, zip, employer, email address, etc.

The only correct and accurate information I put when I submitted the donation, was the card number itself.

Which I have subsequently cancelled….

Un-freaking real…

Dale in Atlanta on October 28, 2008 at 6:44 AM

Wow, Dale. Send that info to the FEC. And the FBI. The fraud is confirmed and rampant. An America saved is an America earned.

Tuning Spork on October 28, 2008 at 6:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8