BLANKLEY: Is Obama secretly sensible?

Blankley, you are either paranoid schizophrenic or just peddling talking points in the guise of journalism. probably both.

Barack Obama is simply a con man like a Jim Jones or a Charles Manson. He sizes people up and exploits their weaknesses. He'll cajole if that's what it takes or he'll get in your face if that's what it takes. He'll say whatever it takes to get what he wants.

By: dempsy Blankley, you are either paranoid schizophrenic or just peddling talking points in the guise of journalism. probably both. No, that would be Barak Obama who is paranoid. You can see it in his pleading with people not to let up, as if they can press harder. All they can do is vote for guy and continue making excuses for him until the election is over. I think Blankley hit it right on the head. Oh, don't expect ANY objectivity from Obama supports, they are totally brainwashed and toally conned by this guy!

Seriously, people, why should I trust a completely compromised McCain either? The straight talker stopped talking straight and bent over to take it from the right wing radicals who were otherwise skeptical of him and his preferred pick of Lieberman or another centrist. Instead, to shore up his so-called 'base', he chose Palin, who to her meager credit, at least wears her idiocy and christofascism on her sleeve.

I like the quote above which reveals that Obama uses the Socratic method. Generally, the Socratic method is used to enable people to lose preconceived notions of reality that prove to be false. This is good. It proves he is a critical thinker. He is smart, and he challenges Americans with his critique. This makes for a better America. But the Republicans continue their self-destructive nose-dive into anti-intellectualism. If they put up a candidate who showed he or she was able to think critically, to argue that America is sometimes dreadfully wrong, and that we are NOT the eschatological realization of Kingdom of God in the world, then I would take them seriously. My understanding of Obama is that, if he has any Marxist tendencies at all, they consist in the belief that negative dialectic helps advance social change. I do not buy the right's claim that Obama thinks he is the MEssiah. And besides, even if he did, I would prefer one fallen, mistaken individual, rather than a whole nation that somehow blindly believes that America as a society and a nation has a messianic duty to spread democracy around the world by the sword. The Republicans, who used to be so acutely aware of humankind's fallenness, have mindlessly forgotten that societal forces only amplify human evil. To the extent, then, that Obama intends to refocus energies at home, rather than so much abroad, I think he might actually be thinking more realistically.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers put constraints of redistributing wealth and economic justice within the Constitution. That is because when it is in the hands of the ruling class, the government in this case, it becomes corruptive. After listening to Obama's statement, he supports doing away with those constraints, and pusuing government redistribution of wealth and economic justice, similar to how Clinton, Frank and Dobbs supported doing away with the fundamental risk management decisions associated with the Fannie Mae triggered subprime initiated economic collapse we are seeing now. Lizza called him an agitator, Powell called him a man of consensus and Tony Blankley is just concerned that people are only listening to a lawyer's tautology and not examining the evidence behind the case.

Yes, indeed. God save the Republic from the likes of a man who wants to rewrite our history. Obama hasn't even proven his American citizenship and his arrogance allows him the audacity to entertain the idea of changing our Constitution and pointing out its blindspots? America-love it or leave it!

What's radical about the NPR quote? Obama correctly notes that the Constitution has not been interpreted to permit redistribution of wealth. If the Warren Court had interpreted the Constitution to the contrary, that would have been truly radical. Obama's statement is a scholarly comment upon constitutional history, not a reflecton of Obama's personal views. Obama has expressed a personal view favoring "redistributive change" in our society. However, Mr. Blankley appears to have assumed, incorrectly, that "redistributive change" is synonymous with socialistic governmental redistribution of wealth through confiscatory policies. Mr. Blankley's error in vocabulary leads to error in his conclusions. In fact, redistributive change does not mean taking from the wealthy to give to the poor(er). Such change can also occur merely by opening opportunities to the lower economic classes through early childhood education, government loans for education, non-discrimination laws, government loans for opening businesses in poor communities (thus bringing jobs into the communities), progressive income tax rates, relatively higher estate tax rate (favored by founder Thomas Jefferson) resulting in lower sales and income taxes during one's lifetime, and similar policies. One can pursue such policies, or all of them, with the goal of tearing down economic class divisions within our citizenry and facilitating movement from lower to higher economic classes, i.e., redistributive change. Since 1980, our country has been pursuing policies that have increased the gap between rich and poor, and even more alarmingly, between the rich and the middle class. In other words, the US has experienced redistributive change in favor of the wealthy. A sense of social injustice, and of non-participation in the American dream, is increasing in this country, much to the detriment of our country's strongest attribute -- the perceived ability of everyone to pursue one's dream. There is nothing even remotely Marxist about seeking to reverse such policies and reducing the gap between the haves and the have nots.

It is not a comment on constitutional history because nowhere within the bounds of the written Constitution does it say the government has the right to manage or legislate economic justice, reparations or redistribute the wealth. That occurs in a court with a jury and is a citizen responsibility and always has been. It is a personal opinion and it is Marxist in context. It is not up the government to impose class warfare on its citizens. "Class conflict is a term long-used mostly by socialists, Marxists, and anarchists, to describe social conflicts between two or more social classes... The typical example of class conflict described is class conflict within capitalism. This class conflict is seen to occur primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and take the form of conflict over hours of work, value of wages, cost of consumer goods, the culture at work, control over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic inequality." - Wikipedia AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY. The last time that happened was in 1917 during the Russian Revolution. For dguffelman: The only part of Obama's statement that applies as historical comment was the fact that he stated the Supreme Court stayed within the constraints of the Constitution. All else is his opinion.

We live in a socialist democracy. A very short list should show you how far left we really are. Show of hands on repealing Social Security? How about Medicare? How about Head Start? How about Food Stamps? How about Affirmative Action? How about the income tax? Even one would make you favoring socialism. It's just a matter of degree. Both candidates will move us toward more socialism. Obama will obviously move us further left faster. Blankley is correct about God save our Republic. After Obama it will be a Republic in name only. Actually after McCain and his cap-and-trade one could say the same about him.

Tony You are incorrect in your basic premise that Obama has sought out racist, radicals and the like. If the Obama story, including his 20 month campaign for the presidency, has taught us anything it is this: Obama is an American success story. He has earned his place in history through hard work, vision, and the ability to share that vision with the American people. Every day, for the last 20 months, more and more people have come to recognize that Obama is the real thing. Why - because he is that moderate, temperate, hopeful, conciliatory person you mentioned in your opening paragraph. Tony - criticize Obama for his stand on issues if you must, but don't make him out to be the monster you know he isn't.

I am surprised that Blankley, former Newt protege that i came to respect when he was the Mc (NPR) show, missed the obvious here: the central core of Obama's foreign policy is that "we should talk to our enemies without precondition", isn't that the same principle here? Even if you disagree with people's views, talk to them in order to get them to see things your way!!! I guess Tony still hold's the Newt view that confrontation is better than talking to your opponent: isn't that Bush's philosophy too?

Are the Wash Times journalists being willfully misleading, or are they simply ignorant? Leaving aside for the moment the issue of misinterpreting Obama's remarks and ignoring the context of his discussion on the NPR interview; The concept of "redistribution of wealth" is not a socialist concept in and of itself. All capitalist societies redistribute wealth to some degree, via various mechanisms. Core to any definition of socialism is the concept of "collective ownership of the means of production", which is distinct from redistribution of income/wealth. Can you guys please stop throwing out the "socialist/marxist" red herring? Its really not constructive...

jhm, In the construct of everything both Obamas have said, including ehir associations I really don't know why you continue to belittle what is obvious to everyone else in regards to the Obama's driving principles It is you who is parsing bits and pieces of their speeches and then saying a "duck is not a duck". I'm not trying to insult you, but there just seems to be such a wealth of information about this man that most of the press ignores that supports his socialistic/state control views.

Tony: One of the words you were alluding to is the Saul Alinsky tactic to "Ridicule" your opponent. Saul Alinsky probably should not be totally demonizeed as he accomplished a lot of good personally, for the disadvantaged but his tactics have been used in other causes as the stuffing of ballot boxes and obtaining of houses for people who were literally out of a job and could never afford a house as perpetrated by the thug organization ACORN. From Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves. For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place. Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.