Do you recall the crap I used to get when implying that the pronouncements and actions of groups like MoveOn.org had anything whatsoever to do with the broader liberal movement?
I'm not paying a lot of attention to the nomination yet. Waiting for the crap to settle out.
As far as the interview goes, you make a good point that the excerpt is misleading, but when you look at the rest of it, it's pretty hard to draw any conclusion other than the people in the show, including Obama, really regret that the court can't do more than it has to "redistribute" wealth.
The "tragedy" referred to was that the civil rights movement worked through the courts for wealth redistribution, when there are better and more effective ways to implement that redistribution. So why is this error considered a "tragedy" if the participants in the discussion aren't supporting such a course of action?
Nothing here, never mind many other Obama statements, would disabuse me of the notion that Obama is firmly in favor of wealth redistribution. In short, yes he's a socialist, and no, he doesn't think the courts are the best way to accomplish it.
Of course, for many people, that's a feature, not a bug.
Current Events » in reply to Obama nominates Elena Kagan for SCOTUS...and so it begins.
Re: ..and so it begins.
The whole thread (32 posts)
- Obama nominates Elena Kagan for SCOTUS...and so it begins.
- "Socialism and Re-distribution of Wealth"
- Re: Obama nominates Elena Kagan for SCOTUS...and so it begins.
- Looks like we dodged a bullet.
- Just noticed again...
- Re: ..and so it begins.