Sarah Palin accused Obama today of wanting to "re-write the Constitution." The potential VP attacked Obama's remark that he had made to a radio interview in 2001. Obama had stated on air that he wanted to "redistribute change." Palin assumed that Obama was talking about redistributing the wealth in America through the enforcement of the Supreme Court. but as more facts were revealed, it came to be known that Obama was discussing the courts in the context of the civil rights movement, and was not referring to taxes. In addition to the proper context of the qoute, Obama also stated that he thought that civil rights leaders shouldn't rely on the court system alone to affect social changes, and that calling for any redistribution of wealth belonged to the legislators.
Palin continued to say that a vote for Obama is a vote to allow a powerful, slightly executive portion of the government to sieze your property and your personal income and to distribute the wealth around with everyone else. Is Sarah Palin saying that a former constitutional law professor would allow and possibly encourage judges to "confiscate your property and your hard, all of your hard-earned money and then re-distribute that"? Further investigation of the matter showed that Obama's quote was taken out of context and that much of what Palin had said was a conjecture.
Thursday Night Open Thread
6 hours ago
3 comments:
first off, nice use of our vocab word "conjecture" Suket.
I'm generalizing a lot here but it seems to me that the voters who support Sarah Palin are definitely not making the 250,000 dollar income that Obama would increase taxes on. It seems like the spin we read about over the summer. Palin is taking seemingly obstuse and benign things and making people upset over them.
Palin "That Obama wants to take our polls and make then systematically predict our elections"
Crowdgoers
"BOOO!"
"HOW DARE HE!" "No one touches my Poll, except me!"
It's been kind of annoying on how Republicans are attacking Obama because it really does almost nothing in influencing people who were not going to vote Republican. Furthermore, i am kind of irritated at how Obama seems so weak on retaliating. I think he should have ads that fiercly denounce Mccain and pallin and also, i think it would really help if he showed commercials of how stupid and violent some Repuclicans who think that Obama is a terrorists
Well, I think that since they're behind in the polls and it seems relatively clear that Obama is going to win, the Republican offensive just seems more like a final nothing-to-lose attempt for victory.
@ Jesse
Well, it may not influence people to vote republican, but from class we did learn that these negative ads lowers voter turnout. Maybe Palin is hoping that her accusations will lower the Democratic voter turnout on election day. As for Obama not retaliating, I think it's a good idea. There seems to be little point in attacking when he is already winning. A misfired attack can be disastrous so I'm guessing he's just playing it safe. As for those commercials, well, that might count as "below-the-belt" and probably won't help Obama much if at all... Obama's refusal to respond to the attacks seem to be doing him good. While normally an un-refuted attack can often mean it is true in many people's eyes, Palin's assaults seem too extreme, making them seem more unbelievable. His stoic silence seems to be doing him good as he doesn't seem to be losing any support.
Post a Comment