In His Own Words....

Or, wanna play a round? (Geesh, can we just get real???)

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan, universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see." Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Civil, Human, and Women's Rights Conference, 2003

"...but, I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."- Barack Obama at the SEIU Health Care Forum, March 24, 2007, after stating his "commitment" was to have universal health care by the end of his 1st term as president.

Flash forward:

"...let me also address an illegitimate concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a trojan horse for a single-payer system...." Barack Obama, at the American Medical Association (AMA) in June, 2009

Do you think that Obama is talking about the same single-payer, universal health care system he talked about "transitioning" to in 10 - 20 years, as recently as 2007, before the AMA, when he calls people's concerns about a single-payer system "illegitimate?"

Apparently, Representative Barney Frank took an "illegitimate" posture when he said:

"I think if we get a good public option it could lead to a single-payer and that's (a good public option) the best way to reach single-payer," on July 27, 2009 (you'll see the quote at the same link provided numerous times above).

...and, by the way, continuing on the issue of Health Care: Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill:

"...outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life or, is it just a medical cut off at a certain age?" -Jane Sturm's question to Obama, after setting it up with a personal story about her mother, who at the time of receiving a pace maker was a feisty 100 years old. She lived to, or lives today at 105 years of age, with a pace maker.

Obama: "...what we (the government) can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system...at least we (the government) can let doctors know, and your Mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the pain killer."

So, the question remains, whether you like the rhetoric used by some or not, do you want the decision about your health care and the health care of your parents and family members to be determined by you and your family or by the government?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rasmussen: Congress' Approval Rating - Single Digits in latest survey

It marks the first time since the election

According to Rasmussen Reports™ Congress' job performance approval rating has fallen to single digits again. It is the first time since November's election, when Democrats gained additional seats in the House and the Senate. Only 2 percent of the likely voters Rasmussen surveyed believe Congress is doing an excellent job while only 9 percent believe Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Among Democrats, only 14 percent gave a good or excellent job performance score to Congress, even though their own party leads.

34 percent of those surveyed think a majority of the Congress is corrupt, down 2 percent since Rasmussen's last survey.

Ironically, while the government is in the throes of seeking more and more regulation in the private sector, a separate Rasmussen survey showed some voters believe politicians are more corrupt than the CEO's of large corporations and that belief was held by a whopping margin of 48 - 25 percent.

In their weekly review of polls, Rasmussen says most Americans see Barack Obama as about the only bright spot in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama: Ready to rule on day one

Paul Seale, Arena of Ideas, posted a short clip of Tom Brokaw's Meet the Press interview with Valerie Jarrett. You can watch the whole clip at the clip link. Here's the money quote:

"Given the really daunting challenges that we face it's important President elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to RULE day one." -Valerie Jarrett, Obama transition co-chair

I thought he was elected to be President, not as ruler of the United States of America.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update on Baptist Press Election Series: "McCain & Obama: In Their Own Words"

I posted McCain & Obama: In Their Own Words from Baptist Press on October 18.

There is no commentary, it is simply Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama's views on a variety of topics in their own words.

These are the links I provided with that posting, followed by links to new topics: McCain's speech to National Right to Life; Obama's speech to Planned Parenthood and; Obama and McCain on humanitarian crises, Darfur:

Barack Obama and John McCain on Roe v. Wade, abortion

McCain and Obama on Iraq

Obama & McCain on the Supreme Court, judicial philosophy

John McCain & Barack Obama on the energy crisis

Barack Obama & John McCain on immigration, border security

McCain, Obama on 'gay rights'

John McCain's speech to National Right to Life

Barack Obama's speech to Planned Parenthood

Barack Obama & John McCain on humanitarian crises, Darfur

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama wants to usher in "social, political and moral change" in America

Much has been made of the Chicago Public Radio discussion on "The Court and Civil Rights," from 2001, in which Barack Obama said:

"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."

"I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts, the institution just isn't structured that way....

"You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time."

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

Last Tuesday, I noted here that the way Obama said "courts," it just didn't sound like the end of the sentence. It wasn't the end of the sentence, however, I don't think knowing the end of the sentence particularly changes anything, at least not in my opinion but, for what it's worth, here is the rest of what he said, at that point in the discussion:

"...I think although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that is a practical matter, our institutions just aren't really equipped to do it."

If anything, it continues the line of thinking that Obama feels the better place to make major redistributive change is through other means than the Supreme Court, you see, during the course of that discussion, Obama had also said:

"I think that if you look at the victories of and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay but, the Surpreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society and, to that extent, as radical as I think 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 its been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the constitution is a charter 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the things that I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused."

The statement does not change the fact that Obama seemed to feel, in 2001, that the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy was successful in vesting, as he said, "formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples," but he alluded to the civil rights movement as failing in causing the court to venture, he said, "into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society," for that reason, he felt, "as radical as I think 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."

I would note, Obama referred to the constraints the Warren Court failed to break as "essential" constraints, I think that is important and further provides focus to the fact that the panel was looking for ways to effect those "issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society," but, at least Obama, didn't feel that the courts were the best way to accomplish those changes.

One could certainly make an argument that by choice of the words "success" and "failure" and their implied application by Obama, that he tends to believe it would have been good, or a "success" if the Warren Court had ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice and that, since he later pointed out, the Warren Court generally interpreted the constitution as, "a charter of negative liberties" that says "what the states can't do to you," and "what the federal government can't do to you but, ... doesn't say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf," that Obama might have felt the state and federal government could be doing more on your behalf and, specifically, he might have felt it should be doing more in the areas of redistributive, political and economic justice, otherwise, why would he call the civil rights movement a failure in that regard, in regards to "bringing about economic change through the courts?"

That is what worries some people, and I believe rightly so, and it appears that it worried Obama and others on the panel of speakers also, but their concern or worry appeared to be dependent upon which side of the political ideological sphere the state and federal governments' social or moral change, through the courts, was represented.

I would also point out that later, Obama and other guests make clear they understand there is a difference between redistributive and distributive actions on the part of the court.

In a nutshell, in my opinion those on the panel were looking for and discussing what was the best way to effect social, political and even moral change in America and in Obama's opinion the Supreme Court didn't seem to have much of a track record of success in that regard.

A caller named Anna, who had been a community organizer and planned to go into labor organizing later asked the speakers, "to comment on why they [thought]," "one of the great tragedies of the civil rights movement was the focus on the courts and not enough on the community work." She could not remember who had made that comment but, it was Barack Obama who had made it and he replied:

"Well, as a former community organizer, this is Barack Obama, it's because organizing's hard. You know, litigation is hard but organizing is harder." Obama added, "You know, part of it is just that, you know, it's difficult to mobilize change at the local level so, that makes a lot of difference."

Gretchen Helfrich, the host of the Chicago Public Radio discussion seemed bent on undermining the reputation of the Supreme Court, calling into question its stability and noting that, as she put it, "[The court] doesn't accomplish stable social change because you always have the intervention of a not clearly predictable act." She kept bringing up Bush v Gore, a decision she clearly despised and disagreed with. Here's what she said: "I'm wondering if the court's position, at the time of Bush v Gore, and don't worry, we're not going there again, but I just want to say, one of the things people said was, 'the Court is this institution that has so much respect and authority and legitimacy so, it could use its institutional reputation to wade into this controversy and impose a solution,' possibly at the expense to that reputation, okay so, you all heard those arguments. My question is, how stable is that?"

Her answer came from Susan Bandes, Professor of law at DePaul University and the editor of the book, “The Passions of Law.” Bandes responded, "I think that we may have kind of a consensus here that the court can, perhaps, bring us a little bit ahead, you know, and act as a kind of a moral signpost in the distance but it can go too far ahead and, you know, we need the community organizers, we need Congress, you know, we need some kind of a dialog and a coalition in order for any kind of change to be at all lasting. I think it was Bickle, Peter Bickle, who has said the court is the least dangerous branch. Really all its got is its capital, it hasn't got the power over the purse, it hasn't got the power of the sword and we have to respect it or it loses everything."

Clearly, this "bird of a feather" panel, hoped and wished to effect social, political, economic and even moral change in America and the effect the civil rights movement played in the Supreme Court was a topic of discussion, as well as the Supreme Court in general, but much of the discussion was over the reach of the Supreme Court and how far it should go in the direction of, as Obama worded it, "economic change through the courts," but the discussion didn't stay focused only on economic change. That topic, the topic of Obama's admission of contradiction within the politically left sphere will likely be the topic of my next post. It pertains to the "moral" changes I kept throwing into this posting. There is a reason for that.

More to come on Obama's redistributive change

(and his admission of contridiction within the ranks of "the left")

When I posted "Recommended Reading 32: Obama and "redistributive change"," I asked a question and said I would try to listen to the entire radio program cited, myself, when I found the time. I did so and I was right in my suspicion.

Sometime tomorrow (excuse me, later today) or when I get a chance and am not so bleary eyed, I'll share some of what I found out.

G'night, or morning, however you care to look at it....to be continued.

Recommended Reading 32: Obama and "redistributive change"

plus a request....

Obama Camp Lashes Out at FOX News Over Coverage of 2001 Radio Interview

Excerpt:

"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-2001

Fox News provides this link: Click here to hear the interview.

The interview ends like this:

"I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts, the institution just isn't structured that way....

"You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

"The court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimatize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts...." -Obama, 2001, Chicago Public Radio-Odyssey

Below is the link to the original audio. I could not get it to load and it seemed to me the interview (as linked above) was cut off at the end, you know, the way he said "courts," didn't sound like the end of a sentence to me. If someone else can get the audio from the Chicago Public Radio Library to play, I would like to have verification if that was the end of the sentence or if what followed gave it a different context. As it is, it certainly sounds an alarm for me...I'm just not sure that was the end of the interview. I will try again later myself.

I know there are all kinds of pundits out there passing off half truths and misinformation, heck, even some of my favorite bloggers are engaging in a bit of it right now and it disappoints me but, as always, I want the whole truth and the whole context before I can feel confident that what I heard above, and you read above, is all there was to it. So, let's set aside partisan politics for a moment and see if we can find out if that was the end of the interview or not (and that said, I must say I am very suspicious of the intent of Barack Obama when it comes to wealth redistribution and I think there is enough to set off alarm bells as it is, but this seemed like a hanging sentence and I don't like hanging sentences).

Chicago Public Radio - Audio Library: Odyssey

January 18, 2001 Audio hosted by Gretchen Helfrich

The Court and Civil Rights
Susan Bandes – Professor of law at DePaul University and the editor of the book, “The Passions of Law”
Dennis Hutchinson – The William Rainey Harper professor in the college, senior lecturer in the law school and editor of the Supreme Court Review at the University of Chicago
Barack Obama – Illinois State Senator from 13th district and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McCain & Obama: In Their Own Words from Baptist Press

"Baptist Press" is running a series of articles called, "In Their Own Words."

There is no commentary, it is simply Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama's views on a variety of topics in their own words, they have done six of them so far and plan to continue.

Here are the links to the individual articles they have published so far from oldest to newest:

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: Barack Obama and John McCain on Roe v. Wade, abortion

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: McCain and Obama on Iraq

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: Obama & McCain on the Supreme Court, judicial philosophy

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: John McCain & Barack Obama on the energy crisis

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: Barack Obama & John McCain on immigration, border security

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: McCain, Obama on 'gay rights'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~