Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Debunking the Debunkers

The Daily Kos tried valiantly, but unsuccessfully, again today to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  No, we're not talking about Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment.  It's his 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio, which was edited into a YouTube video that has created quite a stir in the blogosphere.  The particularly damaging line from the interview is Obama's discussion of "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change . . . ."

The DK's argument is that he didn't really mean redistribution of wealth.  The DK diarist, "georgia10", bolsters this argument with pronouncements from the left-wing Illuminati, including the "Volokh Conspiracy" (who have "legal minds", so they must be correct) and Cass Sunstein (who "sets the record straight" -- thank goodness that Cass is out here in the blogosphere sorting out all those records -- maybe Obama's birth certificate is among them).  The article concludes with what its author obviously considers a "death blow", the words of the mighty oracle itself, "the Obama campaign".

We are impressed.  The diarists at DK have learned to spin adverse news with the same lawyering style that we are used to hearing from Slick Barry himself.  The centerpiece of this style of spin is a move I like to call "changing the subject".  I have noticed that this is the standard Obama response whenever the McCain campaign makes a direct hit by telling the truth.

First, "georgia10" argues that Obama really talking about the civil rights movement's "tragic" choice of the courts as the venue for their ideological agenda.  They should have used "political and community organizing" instead.  That's all he meant.

We are then told to not to listen what the Obamamessiah said ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," said the Wizard of Oz), but rather to focus on the "relatively narrow legal context" ("Look deeeeep into my eyes," said Dracula):  "What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that.  It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer." [from Sunstein]

This is not about socialist economics?  Just look at the terms that are used by the quoted sources: "constitutionalize a right to a minimum income", "more general redistribution", etc.

Finally, the official Obama campaign statement:  "Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all."

Precisely.  As "georgia10" points out, Senator Obama said that the redistribution of wealth should take place via "political and community organizing".  In fact, these are exactly the methods that he has used in his left-wing ideological quest:  first community organizing, then politics.

The coup de grace, however, is found in the video itself.  Obama takes a question from a listener, "Karen", who asks him " . . . [I]s that [i.e., the Courts] the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?" 

Obama does not correct the caller's use of the phrase "reparative economic work".  He does not redirect the discussion to a "relatively narrow legal context".  He does not talk about "positive rights" like education or legal counsel.

He responds, "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts."  In other words, the Revolution must come through "political and community organizing."  It's "a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time."  Like a four-year Presidency full of regulations issued by government agencies, maybe?  Aided and abetted by socialist legislation passed by a Democrat-controlled Capitol Hill?  Obama even leaves the door open for Marxist "change" to come through the Judicial Branch as well:  "Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

He said it himself, "bringing about economic change", in answer to a question about "reparative economic work" (i.e., reparations brought about by "spreading the wealth" through taxation and government payouts).  Or, as Karl Marx put it, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875).

If you don't believe me, watch the video:

This is not a "fake news controversy" or a "false, desperate attack" on the part of Fox News, the Drudge report, the McCain campaign or anybody else.  It is yet another piece of evidence in the damning indictment of Obama's "Audacity of Socialism".

In Response To:  Transparently Backwards: The "Common Alliance" of Smearmongerers Strikes Again
Blogged with the Flock Browser


Anonymous said...

I realized this morning that the question isn't whether BHO is a Socialist. That is now clear. The real question is, if you scratch the surface of his Socialism, he's actually a Communist underneath or not.

Anonymous said...


Proud Democrat said...

You guys are so desperate it's hilarious. I will enjoy reading (and laughing at) this site and the comments. You have nothing left to stand on. Your party is experiencing a failure of EPIC proportion. Get a clue.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes indeed, an evil socialist.

Wait, I just realized that I don't even know what "socialist" means! I think I'm in good company though, as both "chris" and "maximus" seem to haven't a clue either!

Anonymous said...


I knew that eventually I would find the anti-intellectualism site!


Um, guys...unless you have law degrees...please STFU :) Thx!

Anonymous said...

I love it. Obama, if taken out of context, is a socialist. He *TALKED* about it!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!

Meanwhile, back in reality, Palin's Alaska:
In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

Oooooo...tough break guys. You might want to check this one out too:


Mundy said...

I would support sharing oil revenues with citizens of states if offshore drilling were allowed. I'd support the same for logging, coal, and natural gas if those resources were not already owned by a private individual. States should be compensated for their natural resources and if that compensation exceeds their spending, then that should be given back to the people of that state. That is not socialism.

Anonymous said...

My posting must have struck a nerve with you. Why else would you resort to such high-minded legal and political science terms as "STFU"?

I'm glad to be able to debate with such intellectuals. Thanks for all the helpful comments and advice. So happy to hear that you will be regular readers!