Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station

[thcbongman]

Then why an argument against it? Apparently you feel it was a question worthy of an answer. If no else is asking this question then what difference does it matter the tone someone who is willing to ask that question puts on it?

Fact is she actually did something no other reporter would dream of doing. Cornering a candidate to try to get a genuine answer out of them, but as usual Biden weaseled his way out of it with an answer that is a flat out lie.

I don't see that as a pin though. Biden had a way to weasel out of it because of the style the question is asked. I saw it as a cheap-shot and in the end, it didn't answer the question. I believe if she cited a specific example in Obama's policy as marxist, it'd been much more difficult for Biden react and that way, she'd pin him good.

[daihashi]

I don't see that as a pin though. Biden had a way to weasel out of it because of the style the question is asked. I saw it as a cheap-shot and in the end, it didn't answer the question. I believe if she cited a specific example in Obama's policy as marxist, it'd been much more difficult for Biden react and that way, she'd pin him good.

From maladroit's post:

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Thatâ??s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

[JakeMartinez]

Look, they both fucked up. The interviewer AND Biden.

Why is that so hard for everyone to accept? You guys just keep pointing the finger...back and forth...

The interviewer was asking partisan questions, which are NOT proper form for a journalist. Those questions would have been fine if she had asked things that weren't so inflammatory like about the mechanics of Obama's tax plan, or any number of standard, objective questions. That's unethical, to me at least.

Meanwhile, Biden was a bit of a pussy when answering the questions, and like I said before, Obama and Biden should be able to dismiss the bad talk about them without missing a beat. It's one of those things that might appeal to, I don't know, UNDECIDED VOTERS! Treating a serious question like a joke and then giving a weak answer is just disappointing and sad.

And, once again, there's a difference between redistributing the wealth as used by Marx, and changing the way our taxes are skewed are two very different things.

Oh, Daihishi, just because taxes are way super low (I don't think they're the lowest they've ever been, though...especially since the federal income tax wasn't even around for a good 100 years) for the middle class doesn't mean they're as low as they can get. The middle class is the foundation of our economy, so more money for them means more money for everyone. Also, the only increase in taxes Obama's spoken about is rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which did SO MUCH for the economy, and trickled down SO WELL to the middle class.

[Psycho4Bud]

The interviewer was asking partisan questions, which are NOT proper form for a journalist.

Why is it "not fair" when addressing the Obama camp but alright when they do it to Palin or McCain? Ya see, works both ways Jake.

Have a good one!:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

Why is it "not fair" when addressing the Obama camp but alright when they do it to Palin or McCain? Ya see, works both ways Jake.

Have a good one!:s4:

It's in the phrasing of the question, P4B.

it's one thing for people to say "Some people have criticized you of being (insert talking point), what do you have to say to that?" but it's another to phrase it from a partisan point of view. I think Brian Williams and Katie Couric are wonderful journalists who know how to keep their personal beliefs from coloring and driving their work.

[thcbongman]

From maladroit's post:



Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

It's very generalized question. What methods is Obama going to partake to distribute the wealth? Is Obama going the french route and raise the sale tax to 19.6%? Or end up taxing everyone an arm and a leg? Or is going to give workers more leeway to strike? I would've like her to use a specific example instead of a generalized question that is mantra in a negative connotation.

[maladroit]

"Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently."

- spreading the wealth is not socialism, especially the way that obama policies are structured...every civilized country in the world has programs to assist those in need by taxing income/trade...every president (republican and democrat) will oversee policies and programs that spread the wealth such as progressive taxation, medicare, social security, etc...it is not a legitimate question to cherry pick a quote from karl marx, and demand to know why obama isn't a socialist because something he said sounded similar

it would have been legitimate for her to ask how obama is not a socialist after he supported the nationalization of financial institutions...the same question could be levelled at john mccain, george bush, the federal reserve, the banks, and a majority of elected politicians...THAT is real socialism

[dragonrider]

It's in the phrasing of the question, P4B.

it's one thing for people to say "Some people have criticized you of being (insert talking point), what do you have to say to that?" but it's another to phrase it from a partisan point of view. I think Brian Williams and Katie Couric are wonderful journalists who know how to keep their personal beliefs from coloring and driving their work.

The question was not a proper question for an unbiased journailist. It would be a fine question for an opinion pundit, like maybe O'Reilly or Hannity or Olberman, but not for someone passing themselves off as an unbiased journailst.

The reason the question is biased is that it quotes Karl Marx, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," then it attemtps to label Obama a Marxist and make Obama responsible for all of Marx's philosophy based on an out-of-context quote from Obama that it is good to "spread the wealth around."

It is so farfectched to say that these quotes are connected that if she wanted to ask a question about the connection, then it is up to her to show how they are the connected before asking Biden to show how they are different.

For example, if she wanted to go that route, maybe she could have said, "Karl Marx said, 'From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.' And Obama has said, 'It is better when we spread the wealth around.' Some in my audience say that the idea of spreading the wealth around sounds very similar to the idea of taking from each according to his abilities and giving to each according to his needs. How are these two ideas different, or are they the same?"

That is not as biased, because it focuses on the similarities and differences between the two quotes, and it does not attempt to label anyone a Marxist based on a connection that has not been established.

[daihashi]

No question is a valid question for Obama it seems.

You reap what you sow. :hippy:

[dragonrider]

Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

The entire Marxist system is not captured in the statemnt, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." That is more of a philosophical statement, not a statement of the actual mechanism of Marxism, which is the thing the people really have a problem with. Even if Obama had flat out said the same exact words, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," which of course he DID NOT, it wouldn't necessarily mean he is a Marxist, because those words do not capture what a Marxist is.

Marxism is a system of COLLECTIVELY OWNING the means of production so that all those in the collective organization share in the benefits of production equitably --- Marxism is NOT a capitalist system with a progressive tax structure, like what we have now and like what Obama advocates. The two are completely different. We have had a progressive tax structure for how long? 70 or 80 years? Have we been a Marxist country for all that time? If so, then what is the difference? Why label it now? The answer is of course we are NOT a Marxist country, because the government does not nationalize our industries, and nothing Obama has said leads me to believe he intends to do so. (If you want industry to be nationalized, you need George Bush for that!)

Also, when Obama said he thinks it is better when we "spread the wealth around," he was NOT talking about taxing one group in order to spread the wealth to another group. The "spread the wealth around" quote was part of his discussion with Joe the Plumber. And his point to Joe was that people in the lower income brackets are so squeezed that they do not have the money to spend. This economy is driven by spending, so when the spenders have no money, the entire economy suffers. The point about "spreading the wealth" was NOT that a progressive tax structure that allows lower income people to keep more of their money would be the actual mechanism of "spreading the wealth." The point was that if lower income people have enough money to spend, then the economy will be stronger, and we will all be better off --- it's the SPENDING that spreads the wealth around, not the taxation.

George Bush's rationale for his tax cuts for the wealthy was that if the wealthy have more money, then they will invest it, and investment will drive the economy in ways that benefit everyone, even the lower incomes. It's the trickle-down theory --- and it is its own form of "spread the wealth" philospohy. It is rooted in the idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and by putting money in certain places, like in the hands of people who will invest it, it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

Obama's plan for a more progressive tax structure is rooted in the same idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game. The difference is that a more progressive tax plan puts the money in the hands of people who are more likely to SPEND it rather than people who are more likely to INVEST it. It is more of a trickle-up theory that if people have money to spend it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

We have tried the one idea for eight years, and it has not worked so well. So now we are going to try the other idea.