T Nation

2001 Obama Interview

Try this:

Here’s a good piece on that clip. I’ll bet that in the next 8 days more and more of this sort of thing is going to surface.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/27/the-real-obama-forget-the-constitution-economic-justice-demands-redistribution-of-wealth/

From evil FOX:

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview – conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago – delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way – that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have “nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut.”

“Here are the facts. 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,” Burton said…

“As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up – not from the corridors of Washington. … 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,” Burton continued.

John McCain’s campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change,’" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

“Barack 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.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench,” Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it’s a matter of degree. He added that Obama’s outlook on that system hasn’t changed.

“It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn’t do that enough, and I think that’s probably the big point in this tape,” York said.

“You’ve got to take him at his word,” York added. “It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time.”

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

“Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we’ve seen in the past that he’s willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending,” McCain said.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

[/quote]

And this guy will have court picks? This marxist?

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Here’s a good piece on that clip. I’ll bet that in the next 8 days more and more of this sort of thing is going to surface.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/27/the-real-obama-forget-the-constitution-economic-justice-demands-redistribution-of-wealth/ [/quote]

Good piece? You mean blatant partisan hackery and misconstruing the transcript? The Fox news article isn’t half bad, at least it gives multiple explanations of the interview.
Fox certainly does a better job than that nincompoop, who single handedly discredits the intellect of bowties-wearers everywhere. If he’s an example of a Republican intellectual, they need to try harder.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

At most you can argue an indirect relationship between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change,” but don’t let that stop Roger Kimball who obviously has about as much reading comprehension as an aardvark.

Anyone who has studied the civil rights movement in any sort of detail knows that an often cited example of its inadequacy was its reliance on the courts. Obama is bringing up a fairly worn-out point about the civil rights movement.

When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Here’s a good piece on that clip. I’ll bet that in the next 8 days more and more of this sort of thing is going to surface.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/27/the-real-obama-forget-the-constitution-economic-justice-demands-redistribution-of-wealth/

Good piece? You mean blatant partisan hackery and misconstruing the transcript? The Fox news article isn’t half bad, at least it gives multiple explanations of the interview.
Fox certainly does a better job than that nincompoop, who single handedly discredits the intellect of bowties-wearers everywhere. If he’s an example of a Republican intellectual, they need to try harder.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

At most you can argue an indirect relationship between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change,” but don’t let that stop Roger Kimball who obviously has about as much reading comprehension as an aardvark.

Anyone who has studied the civil rights movement in any sort of detail knows that an often cited example of its inadequacy was its reliance on the courts. Obama is bringing up a fairly worn-out point about the civil rights movement.
[/quote]

I just think it’s really funny that first you insult Mr. Kimball - who is a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer - and then you go on to write something as incomprehensible as the above.

Please be clear about what is wrong with what Mr. Kimball said about the Obama interview, and I will gladly respond.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?[/quote]

This is what happens when education consists largely of marxist/collectivist & postmodern ideologies. Unfortunately, we’re going to get a lot more of this.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?[/quote]

AHA!!! I would have more respect for them if they did… truly. Whatever you want to say about Ayers or even Wright, they do not play games with their positions, quote their influences freely and generally make no bones about their disdain for this country as founded and their desire to transform it into a socialist utopia. I disagree in the most strenuous possible terms, but do actually respect their willingness to own their views like men (little men).

But this asshole?!?!?! What the hell is it gonna take? He has a long, clear, unequivocal record of socialist/marxist alliances and views. If people want that then vote for it, but ENOUGH ALREADY with the [quote]“wellll, he didn’t really mean that”[/quote] bullshit. If a highly intelligent man with a superlative command of your native language cannot be understood by what he says AND DOES, where the hell are we?

GEEEEZ!!! Did anybody see him try to refute Palin’s charge of socialism? It looked like the Fonz trying to say he was RRRRRong.

Just @$#^*&#@ face it. The man represents the world view of those we fought the cold war to defeat and views our founding documents as impediments to his agenda.

[quote]Ronald Reagan, SOTU 1987:
<<< Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?

Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you, but it’s so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the Government tells the people of those countries what they’re allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others. Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters and government is their servant. And you young people out there, don’t ever forget that. Someday you could be in this room, but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best–because here in America, we the people are in charge >>>[/quote]

And this

[quote]Barack Obama 2001 radio interview:
<<< And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way – that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. >>>[/quote] Emphasis mine

It will shift if he has his way.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?

AHA!!! I would have more respect for them if they did… truly. Whatever you want to say about Ayers or even Wright, they do not play games with their positions, quote their influences freely and generally make no bones about their disdain for this country as founded and their desire to transform it into a socialist utopia. I disagree in the most strenuous possible terms, but do actually respect their willingness to own their views like men (little men).

But this asshole?!?!?! What the hell is it gonna take? He has a long, clear, unequivocal record of socialist/marxist alliances and views. If people want that then vote for it, but ENOUGH ALREADY with the “wellll, he didn’t really mean that” bullshit. If a highly intelligent man with a superlative command of your native language cannot be understood by what he says AND DOES, where the hell are we?

GEEEEZ!!! Did anybody see him try to refute Palin’s charge of socialism? It looked like the Fonz trying to say he was RRRRRong.

Just @$#^*&#@ face it. The man represents the world view of those we fought the cold war to defeat and views our founding documents as impediments to his agenda. [/quote]

What ticks me off is seeing all these people bitch about the far right. The Republicans are running John McCain for God’s sake! Who do they need to run at the head of their ticket, Arlen Specter? Barney Frank (if he’d switch parties)?! Meanwhile, the Democrat party has gone far, far, left.

Let’s have an honest debate at least. Those in favor of central planning one side, with supporters of a free economy on the other. But, the “far right” business has to end. We’re dealing with a far left candidate, and a just right of center candidate.

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

– Josef Stalin

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

– Josef Stalin[/quote]

And this is the Liberal agenda. All that was moral and sane, is being turned into immoral and insane.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Here’s a good piece on that clip. I’ll bet that in the next 8 days more and more of this sort of thing is going to surface.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/27/the-real-obama-forget-the-constitution-economic-justice-demands-redistribution-of-wealth/

Good piece? You mean blatant partisan hackery and misconstruing the transcript? The Fox news article isn’t half bad, at least it gives multiple explanations of the interview.
Fox certainly does a better job than that nincompoop, who single handedly discredits the intellect of bowties-wearers everywhere. If he’s an example of a Republican intellectual, they need to try harder.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

At most you can argue an indirect relationship between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change,” but don’t let that stop Roger Kimball who obviously has about as much reading comprehension as an aardvark.

Anyone who has studied the civil rights movement in any sort of detail knows that an often cited example of its inadequacy was its reliance on the courts. Obama is bringing up a fairly worn-out point about the civil rights movement.

I just think it’s really funny that first you insult Mr. Kimball - who is a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer - and then you go on to write something as incomprehensible as the above.

Please be clear about what is wrong with what Mr. Kimball said about the Obama interview, and I will gladly respond.
[/quote]

I just think it’s really funny that anyone considers this guy a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer.

From sensationalist Kimball:

" �??The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.�??

Got that? That, according to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was part of the �??tragedy�?? of the civil-rights movement. "

This is a statement unsupported by the portion of the transcript in which Obama talks about the “tragedies” of the civil rights movements. At most you can argue an indirect correlation between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change.”

The “tragedy” is, in part, referring to Civil Rights Movement’s reliance on the courts instead of building “coalitions of power.”

In conclusion (so you can follow it this time), Kimball knowingly misrepresents Obama’s quotation by positing a direct correlation between the “tragedy” and the “redistribution of wealth.”

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
<< The “tragedy” is, in part, referring to Civil Rights Movement’s reliance on the courts instead of building “coalitions of power.” >>>
[/quote]

Do want a socialist scheme of redistribution of previously private assets or not?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?[/quote]

I agree. If the jackboots fit, they ought to start wearing them. Ayers, Obama’s ideological godfather, at least embraces what he is:
http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
When will his supporters just accept the socialist label, and wear it proudly? Redistribute? Are you kidding me? Where did all these little tyrants come from?

I agree. If the jackboots fit, they ought to start wearing them. Ayers, Obama’s ideological godfather, at least embraces what he is:
http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ [/quote]

A rose by any other name?

WTF. [quote]He’s not a socialist!!! He just believes in enacting social/financial justice by giving one person’s money to somebody else at the point of a jail cell.[/quote]

Listen to the guy. I just heard it again 2 minutes ago. [quote]We have to stop giving, GIVING money to the rich in this country.[/quote]

He thinks fundamentally it’s the government’s money and not stealing it through taxation is the same as giving it to you. He can’t help it. It’s who he is. When he tells Joe the plumber about “spreading the wealth around” he can’t help it. It’s who and what he is. When Biden calls it patriotic to “take money and give it to the middle class” he can’t help it. It’s who and what he is.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

– Josef Stalin[/quote]

What’s kind of scary is that in my opinion (I want to state I do not want America to fail, I love this country, and hate to see many ignorant comments out there), but that many of these things seem to be occuring.

For example-

~2 students in my class of 30 say the pledge of allegiance in the morning, and I would say only 6 out of 10 are proud of this country.
~I would have to say that less than 3 out of 10 kids at my school prescribe to a religion, but rather are atheist. “Because only idiots believe in God.”
~Morality, don’t make me laugh. Most kids my age don’t even know how to spell the word, let alone define it. Things are broken down into: what the textbook/teachers tell you is right, what will get you in trouble, and what you can get away with.

Anyone else see this happening near them?

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Here’s a good piece on that clip. I’ll bet that in the next 8 days more and more of this sort of thing is going to surface.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/27/the-real-obama-forget-the-constitution-economic-justice-demands-redistribution-of-wealth/

Good piece? You mean blatant partisan hackery and misconstruing the transcript? The Fox news article isn’t half bad, at least it gives multiple explanations of the interview.
Fox certainly does a better job than that nincompoop, who single handedly discredits the intellect of bowties-wearers everywhere. If he’s an example of a Republican intellectual, they need to try harder.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

At most you can argue an indirect relationship between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change,” but don’t let that stop Roger Kimball who obviously has about as much reading comprehension as an aardvark.

Anyone who has studied the civil rights movement in any sort of detail knows that an often cited example of its inadequacy was its reliance on the courts. Obama is bringing up a fairly worn-out point about the civil rights movement.

I just think it’s really funny that first you insult Mr. Kimball - who is a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer - and then you go on to write something as incomprehensible as the above.

Please be clear about what is wrong with what Mr. Kimball said about the Obama interview, and I will gladly respond.

I just think it’s really funny that anyone considers this guy a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer.

From sensationalist Kimball:

" �??The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.�??

Got that? That, according to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was part of the �??tragedy�?? of the civil-rights movement. "

This is a statement unsupported by the portion of the transcript in which Obama talks about the “tragedies” of the civil rights movements. At most you can argue an indirect correlation between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change.”

The “tragedy” is, in part, referring to Civil Rights Movement’s reliance on the courts instead of building “coalitions of power.”

In conclusion (so you can follow it this time), Kimball knowingly misrepresents Obama’s quotation by positing a direct correlation between the “tragedy” and the “redistribution of wealth.”
[/quote]
Thank you. All day fake outrage by the right on a totally non controversial statement that any rational conservative would agree with. Obama is saying the opposite of what wingnuts are saying he said. Odd group.

Even funnier, there seems to be some kind of weird pride in being unable to read things for themselves.

[quote]Thank you. All day fake outrage by the right on a totally non controversial statement that any rational conservative would agree with. Obama is saying the opposite of what wingnuts are saying he said. Odd group.

Even funnier, there seems to be some kind of weird pride in being unable to read things for themselves. [/quote]

So should we ignore Obama’s infatuation with Marxism evidenced by his writings and his associations with Marxists such as Wright and Ayers?

When I posted the “Obama’s Racialism” thread, liberals became unglued that I would read Obama and take his words at face value, so I think I know the answer to my question. Liberals are experts at mental semantics. “Wipe Israel off the map” really doesn’t mean “wipe Israel off the map,” and the mullahs are great guys. Wright’s “US of KKK A” doesn’t mean what we think it does. And Clinton did not have sex with “that woman.” Che’s also a great guy, if you view him as a great proletarian revolutionary rather than a simple murderer.