Home > Perspective

Redistributing the Election.

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 10/28/2008 2:37:37 PM

The extreme pressure the media are putting on their gag of the Barack Obama 2001 WBEZ radio interview tells us something important:  They think that the blatantly socialist interview, if it were properly covered by the media, would spell the end of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign.  Therefore, instead of the truth, we are fed worshipful polls with extreme bias in the sampling and the weighting, that purport to show Mr. Obama with a national lead approaching the double-digits, and the prospect of a 60+ seat Democrat Senate and a strong Democrat House majority.  We get told tales of how Sarah Palin has ruined the McCain campaign, yet wherever she goes to speak, the crowds are astounding in size.  In fact, while Messrs Obama and Biden travel separately, John McCan has latched onto his V.P. Candidate, traveling with her, in order to spread the truth to as many people as possible, by virtue of her gigantic crowds.  For a "damaging" running mate, this seems like an ironic, even suicidal, way to proceed.  But I digress.

What did Mr. Obama Say?

The press is trying to bury the redistributive interview, which is a goad to Rush and Michelle Malkin and every other lover of America.  Fox News is covering this interview wall-to-wall, and so is all of talk radio.  If this does not seal Mr. Obama’s fate, then Mr. Obama is certain to attempt to permanently silence these folks using the unconstitutional "Fairness Doctrine."

What did Mr. Obama say?  Here are his own words:

Asked if the Earl Warren court was radical, Mr. Obama Answered:

"And to the extent as radical I think as people tried 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 it’s been interpreted.  The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.  It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Mr. Obama, in his own words, laments the fact that the Warren Court (at least partially), refused to "break free from the essential constraints" of the Constitution!  The nutroots have excoriated Rush for the last two days for alleging that Mr. Obama, is anti-Constitutional, but there is really no other reasonable inference from the man’s own words.

To continue, asked if it is too late to change the courts to bring about "redistributive change," Mr. Obama responded:

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.  You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district.  And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out.  You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time."

Again, Mr. Obama accepts the premise that there should be redistributive change, but states that he does not think the courts will get into it, not because the concept is evil, but instead because of "separation of powers" and the amount of "administrative" work that would be required to implement socialism by judicial fiat.  To continuew, Mr Obama said,

"And the court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.  So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

Now, was Mr. Obama saying that it was politically unwise to do so, even though the present talking heads could craft an argument for doing so, or was he saying that it would be politically unpopular to use the courts to force this kind of change, which they all want down the throats of the people?

Mr. Obama continues, with the most damning words he uttered that day:

"I think we can say that, uh, uh, the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and, uh, -- and, uh, that the framers had that same blind spot.  I -- I don’t think the two viewers are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that, uh, it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

Barack Obama believes that this country is "fundamentally flawed."  These are the candidate’s words, shown here in context.  This quote alone vindicates Rush Limbaugh and the Right in everything they have said about Mr. Obama.  The Constitution and this country are not flawed for failing to cause the government take from the productive and give their money to the unproductive.  To the contrary, this is legislated charity at the best, and is best described as borderline Marxist communism. 

John Kennedy, in his 1961 inaugural address, uttered these immortal words, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  Barack Obama is vomiting on Mr. Kennedy’s selfless words to demand that the courts legislate "what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Mr. Obama plans to raise taxes on everyone by allowing Mr. Bush’s tax cuts to expire, even though he has acknowledged that the cuts raise more federal dollars, in the name of what he considers ’fair:"  Restricting how successful one can be in order to equalize everyone in a state of mediocrity.  Look at the malaise of Germany and France, and the collapse of the USSR, in order to see the real-world experiences with the extremist measures that this socialist wants to force upon us.

What is the Effect?

Mr. McCain is gaining in the polls, day by day.  The reliable polls all place Mr. McCain within the margin of error. 

Don’t expect talk radio or the blogosphere of Fox news to rest one second.  We will spread what the press is burying. 

The last-minute push by the 527 groups has begun.  Expect to see ads touting Mr. Obama’s extremism.

The media will continue, stupidly, to publish rigged polls showing Mr. Obama with near-insurmountable leads, but there is a backlash to this kind of hucksterism.  The Democrats may sit at home because they think the election is in the bag.  Meanwhile, the GOP base is excited and enraged, and will turn out in record numbers.

Those who say that mr. Obama has already won are risking embarrassment on election day.  I put Mr. McCain’s chances at 55-45 in his favor, based on trends and relative base.