Notice anything here?

The Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, manages to completely avoid answering the points Megyn Kelly brings up repeatedly. The full transcript of Obama’s 2001 radio appearance:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

So if you read this, it is obvious that Obama does not believe the courts are the way to bring about “redistributive change”. The rather obvious flip side of that is that he believes the redistributive change must be performed by the other two branches of government.

One of which he is a member of, the other of which he is running for.

No wonder his spokesman is blowing smoke.

Via Hot Air.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Smokescreen

  1. It’s amazing, really. We’ve all seen politicians try to evade answering and stick to talking points during difficult interviews, but this guy reminded me of a little propaganda minister. Baghdad Bob would have been proud. On the other hand, I was very impressed with the way Kelly would not let him off the hook and stood up for her network.

  2. Rich Horton says:

    What?? Are we not all happy little socialists already?

    How gauche!

    (Basically, the above is what I’m being told by Obamunists. Yikes. I will probably have to be “re-educated.” Maybe Gaius will be my roomie.)

  3. A friend and I are already designing our redoubt in the High Sierras. :)

  4. martian says:

    This is very typical of the Obamaniacs – never acknowledge the actual question if it’s a topic you don’t want to discuss, just stick to your talking points and attack, attack, attack – even if you have to talk over the interviewer/questioner.

Comments are closed.