Barack Obama 2001 interview...

[southsider2k5]

I am interested to hear the defenses of this one.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[clyons]

What needs to be "defended?" The law professor's answer to a direct question regarding the Constitutional separation of powers, or the You Tube poster's editorial characterization of same as some sort of "bombshell?" I won't touch the latter, but even that poster seems to acknowledge that Obama's comments are not advocacy.

 

My question isn't posed as subtle or snide advocacy either; I confess I may have missed the point.

[Rex Kickass]

OK, I'll give it a shot. Here's some of the transcript of this interview. About 10 minutes before the really "juicy" pieces you've brought up, here's the context of what he means by redistribution of wealth

 

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27

 

33:55 yeah you know one of the things that is interesting and i thnk susan is exaclty right that there is this pruning taking place and that we are aseeing potentially the groundwork being laid for potential future changes being made on substantive issues i mean right now they are sort of obscrure legal issues and at some point this may set the precendent then for trimming 34:15 back on more substantive issues that we care about but there is one other 34:21area where the civil rights area has changed and that is at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court 34:39a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being redistribtion how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those

 

So he's talking about government providing equal funding or better funding for things like school districts. Not about being a governmental Robin Hood.

 

Obama is talking like a constitutional law professor here, but I guess we should view an interview about constitutional law from seven years ago as clear language about what Obama wants to do in the next four.

 

This "October Surprise" is as stupid as the reveal of Bush's drunk driving arrest in 2000. Pointless and doesn't really say anything about anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, I'll give it a shot. Here's some of the transcript of this interview. About 10 minutes before the really "juicy" pieces you've brought up, here's the context of what he means by redistribution of wealth

 

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27

 

 

 

So he's talking about government providing equal funding or better funding for things like school districts. Not about being a governmental Robin Hood.

 

Obama is talking like a constitutional law professor here, but I guess we should view an interview about constitutional law from seven years ago as clear language about what Obama wants to do in the next four.

 

This "October Surprise" is as stupid as the reveal of Bush's drunk driving arrest in 2000. Pointless and doesn't really say anything about anything.

 

And like the Bush arrest, its something most people paying attention already knew. Obama wants more equity in school funding.

 

CAVEAT: I have read this transcript but have not yet watched the video. I suppose there may be some other "bombshell" in there, maybe. But the discussion quoted above, I see no issue with at all.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

The video is just a four minute extract of a 58 minute interview.

[Texsox]

The video is just a four minute extract of a 58 minute interview.

 

That's how the liberal media does it

[HuskyCaucasian]

redistribution of wealth... redistribution of wealth... redistribution of wealth

 

I hate to break it to everyone. By nature... taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Unless we tax every single person, whether you make $5 a year or $5,000,000, a set amount... it's a redistribution of wealth. The rich pay for things that benefit the poor.

 

Dont like the rich paying for the streets that benefit the single working class mother who is driving her son to the baby sitter so she can go work a 12 hour day? Fine, then ban them from using the streets that were payed for by the "wealthy". Charge everyone who drives down Schaumburg road a .$50 toll every 2 miles. Or, make that woman use the sewer system to get to her sitter. Oh wait. that sewer was payed for by tax dollars of the "wealthy". Guess she cant use that either. Well, I guess she gets to stay home and wallow in filth and squalor while the rich live on in luxury.

 

I have no problem with my tax dollars helping those who are less privileged than I am. I by some stroke of pure luck that I were to become exceptionally wealthy, I have no doubt most of my money would go towards civil services that help those in needs. And maybe... just maybe if those who had 11 homes, private jets, 15 cars, and private islands felt it good in their heart to sell all that to give back to the community... we'd be better off.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

redistribution of wealth... redistribution of wealth... redistribution of wealth

 

I hate to break it to everyone. By nature... taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Unless we tax every single person, whether you make $5 a year or $5,000,000, a set amount... it's a redistribution of wealth. The rich pay for things that benefit the poor.

 

Dont like the rich paying for the streets that benefit the single working class mother who is driving her son to the baby sitter so she can go work a 12 hour day? Fine, then ban them from using the streets that were payed for by the "wealthy". Charge everyone who drives down Schaumburg road a .$50 toll every 2 miles. Or, make that woman use the sewer system to get to her sitter. Oh wait. that sewer was payed for by tax dollars of the "wealthy". Guess she cant use that either. Well, I guess she gets to stay home and wallow in filth and squalor while the rich live on in luxury.

 

Do you really believe that half of the country should be supporting the other half?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Do you really believe that half of the country should be supporting the other half?

Half the country?? please.

[BigSqwert]

Do you really believe that half of the country should be supporting the other half?

Is that what we did from '92 - '00? He wants to roll back the tax cuts to the Clinton years.

[southsider2k5]

Half the country?? please.

 

Excuse me, 44%.

 

Should someone in the 40th percentile not pay any income taxes?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I also want to make it clear. I do NOT favor the "sit on your ass and take federal money" welfare system. That needs some reform.

 

But I do think using money from those who are well off to support projects like healthcare for all, new energy, and fixing our education system is very important.

 

Lets look at something Obama said. In one interview he talked about using rich money form the suburbs to help inner city schools. What's wrong with that? If we didnt build up those schools, where would the kids go? To some slum school with a teacher who doesnt care? You make them better so maybe someday one fo those kids will have the ability to be living in the suburbs with a nice car.

[southsider2k5]

Is that what we did from '92 - '00? He wants to roll back the tax cuts to the Clinton years.

 

At the top, not at the bottom. Otherwise that whole tax cuts for 95% of the country lie would be hard to go with.

[bmags]

Income tax is not the sole tax in this country. While the wealthy pay the vast majority of the welfare tax, middle and lower classes have a significant, if not greater % of their income taxed in different ways. Everyone is paying into this system, and as a result we have a strong infrastructure, strong military and strong country.

[bmags]

tpm:

 

McCain Campaign Falsely Claims Obama Described Court's Failure to Redistribute Wealth As "Tragedy"

By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008, 12:16PM

 

The McCain campaign's efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet socialist took a turn into the burlesque today, with the McCain camp falsely claiming that in a seven year old interview, Obama said that it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court hadn't redistributed wealth away from hard-working Americans.

 

The Obama interview in question is being pushed relentlessly today by the wingnuts, who are circulating this audio of it.

 

The McCain campaign just blasted out a quote from senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin hammering Obama. In the interview, Holtz-Eakin claimed, "Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.'"

 

Holtz-Eakin asserted that this proves that Obama wants to take money "away from people who work for it" and give it to people "Obama believes deserves it." Apparently McCain himself is going to pick up this cudgel on the trail today, too.

 

But as usual, this latest attack rests on a complete falsehood.

 

If you look at Obama's full quote -- which you can read right here -- it's very clear that Obama was not directly "regretting" the failure of the court to be "radical." Rather, he was saying that the court's failure to take up redistributive issues proved that it wasn't as "radical" as some have claimed. The "radical" line was clearly a dispassionate claim about the reality of history.

 

What's more, take a look at the operative part of Obama's quote that includes the "tragedy" line:

 

One of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

 

As you can see, Obama simply didn't say that the court's faiulre to take up redistribution was a tragedy. Rather, he was arguing that it was a "tragedy" that the Civil Rights movement expected the courts to do too much in this regard, which led the movement away from other ways of accomplishing redistributive goals, such as organizing and legislative politicking.

 

Now, it's true that Obama was describing redistribution as a worthy goal. The wingers are grabbing on to this as proof, along with his recent claims to America's Favorite Plumber, that he harbors a shadowy socialist and redistributionist agenda. But Obama clearly wasn't talking about the mass seizure of wealth -- after all, redistribution is the whole idea behind taxation, which is a fairly mainstream concept that McCain still presumably supports in principle.

 

What's more, Obama legal adviser Cass Sunstein argues to Ben Smith that Obama was discussing "redistribution" in the context of a narrow legal discussion about civil rights, meaning he was discussing whether the courts should make the things that guarantee a social safety net -- education, welfare, and the like -- court-mandated rights.

 

Ironically, Sunstein points out, Obama was arguing that legislative action was a preferable vehicle for accomplishing such goals.

 

If McCain disagrees with Obama's argument that the courts aren't the primary place to accomplish such things, he should say so. It would certainly make news.

[southsider2k5]

I also want to make it clear. I do NOT favor the "sit on your ass and take federal money" welfare system. That needs some reform.

 

But I do think using money from those who are well off to support projects like healthcare for all, new energy, and fixing our education system is very important.

 

Lets look at something Obama said. In one interview he talked about using rich money form the suburbs to help inner city schools. What's wrong with that? If we didnt build up those schools, where would the kids go? To some slum school with a teacher who doesnt care? You make them better so maybe someday one fo those kids will have the ability to be living in the suburbs with a nice car.

 

So who actually said that the rich shouldn't pay any taxes? They already do all of the stuff, today. The poor don't pay for their school, infrastructure and all of that other stuff today. They also don't create the jobs they work at either. No one seems to want to mention that taking money out of the pockets of the people who create jobs in the first place, isn't a good idea for a recession policy.

[southsider2k5]

tpm:

 

McCain Campaign Falsely Claims Obama Described Court's Failure to Redistribute Wealth As "Tragedy"

By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008, 12:16PM

 

The McCain campaign's efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet socialist took a turn into the burlesque today, with the McCain camp falsely claiming that in a seven year old interview, Obama said that it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court hadn't redistributed wealth away from hard-working Americans.

 

The Obama interview in question is being pushed relentlessly today by the wingnuts, who are circulating this audio of it.

 

The McCain campaign just blasted out a quote from senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin hammering Obama. In the interview, Holtz-Eakin claimed, "Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.'"

 

Holtz-Eakin asserted that this proves that Obama wants to take money "away from people who work for it" and give it to people "Obama believes deserves it." Apparently McCain himself is going to pick up this cudgel on the trail today, too.

 

But as usual, this latest attack rests on a complete falsehood.

 

If you look at Obama's full quote -- which you can read right here -- it's very clear that Obama was not directly "regretting" the failure of the court to be "radical." Rather, he was saying that the court's failure to take up redistributive issues proved that it wasn't as "radical" as some have claimed. The "radical" line was clearly a dispassionate claim about the reality of history.

 

What's more, take a look at the operative part of Obama's quote that includes the "tragedy" line:

 

One of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

 

As you can see, Obama simply didn't say that the court's faiulre to take up redistribution was a tragedy. Rather, he was arguing that it was a "tragedy" that the Civil Rights movement expected the courts to do too much in this regard, which led the movement away from other ways of accomplishing redistributive goals, such as organizing and legislative politicking.

 

Now, it's true that Obama was describing redistribution as a worthy goal. The wingers are grabbing on to this as proof, along with his recent claims to America's Favorite Plumber, that he harbors a shadowy socialist and redistributionist agenda. But Obama clearly wasn't talking about the mass seizure of wealth -- after all, redistribution is the whole idea behind taxation, which is a fairly mainstream concept that McCain still presumably supports in principle.

 

What's more, Obama legal adviser Cass Sunstein argues to Ben Smith that Obama was discussing "redistribution" in the context of a narrow legal discussion about civil rights, meaning he was discussing whether the courts should make the things that guarantee a social safety net -- education, welfare, and the like -- court-mandated rights.

 

Ironically, Sunstein points out, Obama was arguing that legislative action was a preferable vehicle for accomplishing such goals.

 

If McCain disagrees with Obama's argument that the courts aren't the primary place to accomplish such things, he should say so. It would certainly make news.

 

The irony is that this article also takes the quote out of context, it leaves out the part where Obama then goes on to talk about how he believes the government should be the ones doing the redistribution of wealth.

 

[clyons]

The irony is that this article also takes the quote out of context, it leaves out the part where Obama then goes on to talk about how he believes the government should be the ones doing the redistribution of wealth.

 

I haven't scrutinized this as closely as some others, but I missed that "part," and haven't seen anything that even comes close to that, or references "wealth" whatsoever. I hate to sound lazy or obtuse, but can someone please provide the relevant quote?

[StrangeSox]

The entire, not-completely-hacked-up clip is available on WBEZ's website. It's the January 18th episode. This specific discussion starts about half way through.

 

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp

 

Matt Drudge thinks this is the biggest thing to ever happen in politics, Daily Kos thinks it is nothing. At least you can listen to the full interview instead of the chopped youtube video to decide for yourself.

 

Drudge was also pimping the 28 second clip of Obama saying the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed" (OMG BOOGA BOOGA!). It was another hacked together clip with zero context, and the parts that did give context were intentionally cut out of the middle.

 

It's a 54 minute discussion on slavery/ racial equalities.

 

Here's his full answer (starting at ~46 min):

 

"I think it's a remarkable document, as well as the civil war amendments, but i think it is an imperfect document, and I think that it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture -- at that time. African Americans were not --first of all they weren't african-americans -- the africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as Richard said, it was a nagging problem in the same way these days that we might think of environmental issues or some other problem where you have to balance cost benefits as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth, and in that sense I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blindspot in our culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blindspot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

 

 

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rasep01.asp

 

September 6th episode.

 

Clearly, Obama hates America.

 

I hate Matt Drudge.

Edited October 28, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Do you really believe that half of the country should be supporting the other half?

 

I look at it differently, do we really want to live in the country that the poorest among us can build? Are those the schools we want? The roads? The military? It's not about supporting the other half, it's about the military, schools, interstate roads, CIA, FBI, and all the other stuff that comes along with it. All that is greatly reduced when we start living on what the poorest can afford.

[StrangeSox]

I look at it differently, do we really want to live in the country that the poorest among us can build? Are those the schools we want? The roads? The military? It's not about supporting the other half, it's about the military, schools, interstate roads, CIA, FBI, and all the other stuff that comes along with it. All that is greatly reduced when we start living on what the poorest can afford.

 

I agree 100%, and that's why I agree with a slightly progressive tax system. I think what we currently have now, where some people get a bigger refund than they pay in, is wrong. I think that Obama is wrong for hitting the wealthy as hard as he plans to. I also think McCain is wrong for giving them as big of a break as he plans to.

 

I disagree with some of what Obama was saying in that interview, but I don't know how you can deny that what he said was taken out of context and heavily distorted to make it appear that he's left of Lenin. His tax policies are more-socialistic than McCain's, but he's not a socialist. Progressive taxation =/= socialism.

[Balta1701]

I agree 100%, and that's why I agree with a slightly progressive tax system. I think what we currently have now, where some people get a bigger refund than they pay in, is wrong. I think that Obama is wrong for hitting the wealthy as hard as he plans to. I also think McCain is wrong for giving them as big of a break as he plans to.

 

I disagree with some of what Obama was saying in that interview, but I don't know how you can deny that what he said was taken out of context and heavily distorted to make it appear that he's left of Lenin. His tax policies are more-socialistic than McCain's, but he's not a socialist. Progressive taxation =/= socialism.

The biggest problem with this is that it's way overstated how often that actually happens, because it is assuming that income tax is the only tax that's being paid.

[bmags]

The irony is that this article also takes the quote out of context, it leaves out the part where Obama then goes on to talk about how he believes the government should be the ones doing the redistribution of wealth.

 

Yeah I just don't see it like that. I believe he was talking about government v. courts.

[southsider2k5]

I look at it differently, do we really want to live in the country that the poorest among us can build? Are those the schools we want? The roads? The military? It's not about supporting the other half, it's about the military, schools, interstate roads, CIA, FBI, and all the other stuff that comes along with it. All that is greatly reduced when we start living on what the poorest can afford.

 

So on a different track, what is their obligation to the other half of the country, for all of that great stuff we are giving them?

[DukeNukeEm]

I'm really sick of people calling higher taxes on the wealthy "punishing success", it drives me wild. It's not like the more money you earn the less money you take home, if you're banking $600,000 a year you're still going to be pretty well off in both Obama and McCain's tax plans.