Say what you will about President George W. Bush, but I don’t recall him ever mocking an elderly widow in his pronouncements. But Barack Obama couldn’t get through his first press conference as president-elect without doing just that.
Answering a question from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times as to the presidents he has consulted during the transition, Obama took a gratuitous jab at Nancy Reagan.
WaPo’s Chris Cillizza noted the remark in his column for purposes of predicting it was "sure to set the conservative blogs afire." Glad to oblige. But would the MSM be so reserved in its reaction were the political tables turned?
The Kossacks at the Daily Kos are hitting the panic button over the Obama "redistribution of wealth" audio which has become the hottest political topic on the Web, including the Drudge Report. As NewsBusters Mark Finkelstein has noted, most of the MSM morning TV shows, with the exception of Fox & Friends and Morning Joe, are still continuing to bury this story which your humble correspondent posted earlier today. However, this burial by the MSM is giving little comfort to the denizens of the Daily Kos. Right now they are trying to desperately spin away this story with excuses that Obama talking about "redistribution of wealth" was taken out of context or that we must understand the nuances of what he actually meant. You can see the Daily Kos spin control on this erupting story on this thread so let us now join the Kossacks as they sweat buckets trying to explain away Obama’s words that could cost him the election:
The problem, of course, is that Obama never says that it’s "a tragedy that redistribution of wealth" was not pursued. Or rather, there are no Marxist or Socialist overtones that any reasonable person could read into this interview. This is the GOP’s October Surprise, and we need to be prepared to combat it.
Obama said that he wasn’t "optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts." Instead he wants to redistribute the wealth legislatively. I think that all reasonable people can read Marxist or Socialist overtones into "redistributive change."
Obama is not talking about "radical Marxism." He’s simply talking about the possibility for a Legislative procedure that would mirror what the Warren court did for Civil Rights, and make that in accord economically, which the courts do not have the power to do. When we consider how disproportionately the different classes are taxed (the rich regularly pay fewer taxes, percentage wise, than the middle class and paying lower class because they have more loopholes available), then OF COURSE the legislature and organizers should look into "redistributive change."
You went into all sorts of spin control contortions only to end up back at the fact that Obama did indeed call for "redistributive change." Redistribution of wealth via legislature rather than by courts is what Obama clearly asked for in that interview.
That is not a radical proposition but rather the exact kind of change we need right now!
Redistribution of wealth isn’t a radical idea for Kossacks but then neither is the nationalization of industry in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.Â
I wasn’t sure about commenting on this because it’s such a ridiculous and vacuous charge, and I’m sure it’ll become overplayed in a few days (here and elsewhere), but I do think it’s important that we as Democrats are able to explain to people what Obama said without the boogeyman filter and reactionary, kneejerk politics of the GOP.
I truly cannot imagine the HOURS of boring shit these idiots have to wade through in order to come up with a teeny nugget that gets minimal play.
You wish. Right now Laura Ingraham is talking about this audio on her show. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will follow suit. The MSM might try to ignore it for a time but it will get harder and harder to do so over the next few days. The elephant has left his giant "deposit" on the living room floor and it will become impossible for even the MSM to ignore the stench.
I think they’ve taken a few constitutional discussions out of context and pieced them together to sound bad. I’d invite someone to dig up the original broadcast from 2001 and find out the intro question as well as the panel discussion. Someone else was there, because Obama refers to a 3rd person along with the host as being able to come up with something.
Yeah, you do that. Try inviting Brian Williams to dig up the original broadcast even though you don’t need to since we already have it. Oh, and the "3rd person" on the audio was Karen the Caller.
People can argue that these are his true feelings, but it’s quite evident that he’s just explaining the history of the Warren court. Â There’s nothing there expressing his "viewpoint". Â This shouldn’t get a lot of air time and if it does, I might eat my hat. Â
Break out the salt shaker.
There will be relentless bludgeoning of Obama as a socialist and Marxist for now until late on election day. Â What’s the best way to counter it?
The MSM is trying to counter it by pretending that audio doesn’t exist.
Listen to the WHOLE tape. Â It is a discussion about civil rights and the courts and really isn’t that big of a deal.
Until Obama, without prompting, brought up "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice."
Morning Joe just brought it up. It was obvious nobody there had any clue about the full context of the entire audio clip. It was appalling. No journalistic standard whatsoever.
They just didn’t have your "superior" understanding of the nuances involved.
Golllleeee, can you imagine people in a certain business having connections in the same business and talking to each other or hell forbid Republicans that know other Republicans and talk to one another concerning getting something done. My, my how the MSM and the Dems have attempted to turn this into political crimes but don’t ask anything about Obama’s friends, acquaintances or business associates.
The wife of former GOP presidential aspirant Fred Thompson took on Alan Colmes on the October 23 broadcast. Jeri Thompson, who heads up Team Sarah, a campaign effort to get out the vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, went toe-to-toe with the liberal co-host of "Hannity & Colmes" on the matter of the media’s hyping the non-scandal of the RNC’s wardrobe expenses for the Alaska governor.
Mrs. Thompson has personal experience with the viciousness of the liberal media against conservative Republican women, as NewsBusters coverage about the media dismissing her as a "trophy wife" can attest.
Earlier in the campaign Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for President, but it later withdrew that endorsement when Obama made a statement–no doubt insincere–in support of Israel. The Islamic Republic of Iran, taking a longer view, has now made a considered decision to back The One’s presidential campaign:
Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday that Iran would prefer Democrat Barack Obama in the White House next year. Larijani also dismissed any idea that the US would attack Iran.
“We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much,” Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain.
“More flexible” than John McCain? No kidding. McCain has been tested, to put it mildly, and has proven that he is not “flexible.” Barack Obama, on the other hand, will twist himself into a pretzel to avoid having to make a hard decision, and our enemies know it. They’re keeping their fingers crossed, hoping that our dimwitted left-wing reporters and editors will succeed in dragging Obama across the finish line before the American people figure out that they’re voting for the Mullahs’ candidate.
I’m not familiar with columnist Orson Scott Card, but his open letter to journalists is must reading. It appeared first in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina. Via InstaPundit:
This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. …
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed. …
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
But the mainstream media–which is to say, most reporters and editors who work for “mainstream” news organizations–have no honor and are not interested in truth. They are, as Card says, “the public relations machine of the Democratic Party.” It’s time to accept that fact and move on. Our existing news organizations–the New York Times, the Associated Press, NBC, CNN, CBS, and so on–can’t be reformed, they can only be ignored. It is time for conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and normal citizens who are interested in straightforward reporting of the news to build their own news organizations in competition with the corrupt ones that now exist.
Say what you will about President George W. Bush, but I don’t recall him ever mocking an elderly widow in his pronouncements. But Barack Obama couldn’t get through his first press conference as president-elect without doing just that.
