Posts
Today a silly brouhaha is underway about a statement Barack Obama made in 2001. Here's what has Republicans so up in arms: Here's the response, in the form of Doug Holtz-Eakin's latest contribution to the civil, respectful campaign promised by his boss John McCain: "No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change." [emphasis added]And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."
The point Obama makes here is the conservative critique of liberals in the Warren Court era: that they should have done more to work for legislative, rather than court-ordered, change. (Cass Sunstein makes this point in the same Ben Smith post that has Holtz-Eakin's quote below.)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Shame On Doug Holtz-Eakin
I used to respect Holtz-Eakin. But his performance in this campaign has been a true embarrassment. He's a pathetic shell of the decent man I thought he was.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Actually, this Holtz-Eakin guy's comment is perfectly correct, though he may not actually know it.
Obama refers to 'redistribution', aka governmental theft and extortion, while the 'civil rights movement' presented itself as fighting for simply 'equal opportunity/access' in its' early stages. That goal was legitimate and necessary 40+ years ago, but of course the 'civil rights' efforts of today-and for a good 30+ years now- are merely extortion and racialist(sometimes purely racist)spoils-seeking. Obama plainly seeks 'redistribution', not 'equal opportunity'-not surprisingly for a deformative action receipient of a useless elite education- and McCain's campaign is perfectly correct to say so.Again, the latter is acceptable, the former not, but attempted imposition of either by the judiciary is tyranny and should be treated as such.
Rantly,
I was thinking of engaging you but this line suggests it would be pointless:
"not surprisingly for a deformative action receipient (sic) of a useless elite education"
very classy!
As for Holtz-Eakin, as Matt Yglesias put it, leave this for the flacks.
Post a Comment