Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

The audacity of suggesting Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" is similar to the ideals of the infamous Karl Marx! Why, how dare this uppity naif challenge the mighty messiah in such a televised fashion?! Via Fox:

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No."
The full interview can be seen here.

Biden, too his credit, didn't directly insult the reporter or rail on about her minuscule IQ but the Obama camp did cancel a future interview with Senator Biden's wife with an email that included:
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,"
Weak. Though for a candidate whose base is rhetoric rather than accomplishment I suppose it's to be expected. Perhaps the large scale media coddling the Obama candidacy has enjoyed has left them soft, extra vulnerable to the media cynicism that's been directed at their opponent.


The Red Son said...

That was a pretty weak quote to pull from Marx that describes egalitarianism if anything, not Marxism. The revolutionary left was roundly denounced Obama as a stooge of capitalism and a semi-progressive reformer at best. When I hear him called a Marxist, I am insulted and wonder when he ever has called for the elimination of capitalism and a class based society.

Jay@Soob said...

I'd agree that the terms Marxism, Leninism and socialism are conveniently intermixed as though they all carry the same definition. I'd also say the term Marxism is, specifically a bit overused on the right (like fascism is a bit over used on the left.)

Anonymous said...

She wasn't uppity, she was stupid. These are questions a respectable reporter like O'Reilly or (God forbid) Hannity or Olbermann would not bother asking. There are far better ways to trip Biden or Obama up than this putrid crap. Biden and Obama are not Sarah Palin, they don't run away from a tough interview or harsh questions. They just rightfully don't tolerate stupidity. If Sarah Palin did the same thing to a dumb ass liberal reporter, I would support her on that.

Plus, when I heard her talk about ACORN, I wanted to scream. "Voter fraud" is the biggest, dumbest lie this often ridiculous campaign has seen. In hundreds of millions of votes cast from 2002-2006, in a time when the Bush Justice Dept. was forcing its prosecutors to search high and low for voter fraud at the expense of perhaps more urgent crimes such as drugs, terrorism and financial fraud, they were only about to convict 86 people. That's like a .000000001 fraud rate.

Jeff Wills said...

I do think comparing Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment to Marxist philosophy is silly. But certainly the candidates have fielded plenty of silly questions. I guess the Obama's campaign's response is probably what we can expect from an Obama administration.

Jeff Wills said...

I do think comparing Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment to Marxist philosophy is silly. But certainly the candidates have fielded plenty of silly questions. I guess the Obama's campaign's response is probably what we can expect from an Obama administration.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Look for hand-wringing editorials 3-4 months from now along the line of "Why Didn't We Question This Guy A Little Harder?"

I like the line "a candidate whose base is rhetoric rather than accomplishment".

We'll see.

Adrian said...

"Senator, Karl Marx once observed the sky is blue. Senator Obama has also observed the sky is blue. Doesn't that make Obama a Marxist?"

Seriously that interviewer is stupid. It's one thing to question a politician skeptically. If she had asked questions like "won't the economic downturn make it harder to pay for stuff" or "why does your budget plan not mention the defense budget?", those are legit hard questions. Asking stuff about ACORN and Marxism means you are stupid and haven't bothered to do any basic research for your interview beyond reading pajamas media. There's no reason any campaign should waste their time with people like that.

Purpleslog said...

"...a candidate whose base is rhetoric rather than accomplishment..."

That's a nifty turn of phrase.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the same anchor treated McCain with kid gloves. This is the problem with partisan media. There just are not enough talented people in the biz to be good at their job when coming at it from an ideological bent (Chris Wallace on Fox is a great example of someone who does it impressively).

Jay@Soob said...

I don't get the "stupidity" as presented by eddie and adrian.

Beyond the exchange between Obama and the now rather tired cliche of Joe the Plumber Obama has shamelessly exploited class warfare ideology, presenting an "us vs them" mentality that isn't lifted direct from the Communist Manifesto but certainly echoes it's proletariat/bourgeoisie class struggle. I don't believe Obama has embraced Marxism but the questions weren't stupid and the reaction was a petulant temper tantrum in the face of uncomfortable questioning. I'd opine that Biden and his handlers expected a starstruck local journalist to softball him. She surprised him and pissed him off for it.

Jay@Soob said...

Eddie, a partisan media is to be expected to a degree. Human nature and all that jazz. The degree of partisan bias, however, is what makes the MSM a difficult source for information. Agreed on Chris Wallace. I find the least political bias in international affairs journalists (Fareed Zakaria, Robert Kaplan, Tom Friedman, etc.) Of course this does little good for domestic affairs sources.

Jay@Soob said...

Allen, P-Slog thanks.

JoshSN said...

I'm a big fan of the Oracle of the American Republic, Montesquieu. So were almost all the people known as American Revolutionaries (rebranded by conservatives as the "Founding Fathers").

Montesquieu said the "principle" of a direct democracy system was "equality." We don't have that, and probably couldn't handle it.

The "principle" of the representative democracy was "moderation." No one can try to ram a fifteen spikey steel rod up my *ss and try to tell me that a hedge fund manager earning 3,000,000,000 a year paying a lower tax rate than if they were actually working for a living is fair.

The first debate in Congress of the U.S. Constitution government (rather than the Articles) was about a tariff bill. They knew they needed to get more money from the people who drank madeira than who drank rum.

There were parts of the original tax system that were regressive (the Whisky Rebellion was started by tax that hit small companies harder than the big ones) but nothing as bat sh*t f*cking insane as the Fair Tax balogna spewed by the nitwit plutocrats running the Republican Party.

JoshSN said...

Usually I'm much more reserved.

By the way, the sentence that ends "is fair" should have ", not to mention, moderate." tacked on.

Jay@Soob said...

A flat tax rate is about as "fair" as I can imagine a tax rate to be. Penalizing those that earn more than $250,000 annually is not, by my count, fair. Nor is it a wise economic decision, especially during a recession. But makes for excellent campaign fodder.

Adrian said...

Taxing poor people less in a recession makes sense because poor people spend money because they need more stuff. In a recession rich people will not invest, thus they save money rather than spend it, hurting the economy. It's called the paradox of virtue. There's plenty of logical economic theory behind progressive taxation even during recessions.

Arguments for the "fair" tax can just as easily be applied to arguing for a truly flat tax of the same amount of money per person. Why "penalize" someone because they make more money? The person making $100,000 and $30,000 should both be taxed the same amount! Of course this is totally impractical and would result in disaster, just like the "fair" percentage-wise tax. But it would be a fair disaster, affecting most people equally.

SYSOP said...

I fear for this country if Obama is elected. Socialism is not a proper way for a government to operate. The government now controls our banking system. The U.S. is becoming a scary place.

Please review my blog for a lot more information on this subject, the subject of survival in general, and some interesting conspiracy theories!

The blog is:
The Aspiring Survivalist