The latest McCain-Drudge-Fox falsehood
October 28th, 2008 at 02:29pm Pat Cunningham
John McCain’s new penchant for calling Barack Obama the would-be “Redistributionist-in-chief” — a term not likely to stir passions among the booboisie — arises from distortions of something Obama said in a radio interview seven years ago.
The Washington Post puts THIS NONSENSE in perspective.
UPDATE: The Associated Press also is DEBUNKING this crap.
UPDATE II: ABC News is JOINING the debunking party.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
9 Comments Add your own
1. echo4charlie | October 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Not only that, a down payment on an election celebration at Grant Park is rumored to have been paid ($ 2M).
Wow. I hope it is refundable.
2. SNuss | October 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Don’t like “Redistributionist-in-chief” ?
How about “Socialist-in-Chief”? Accurate, and to the point.
There is little difference between: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” and “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” .
And then there is Obama’s Judicial agenda: Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants– those with “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don’t stop and think (typical of the Far-Left)– and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who, or what you are, rather than on the facts and the law?
3. DingDong | October 28th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
How voter fraud extraordinaire. This make me sick, these people deserve to vote more than anyone. Democratically controlled congress is wonderful. Image what it will be like with congress and the president both democratically controlled.
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21310185/ballot_battle.htm?pageid=27100
4. Craig Knauss | October 28th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“Image what it will be like with congress and the president both democratically controlled.” Kinda like a Congress and President both controlled by the Republican Party, only without a Republican controlled Supreme Court? Like when the country was run by George the Idiot and his loyal band of suckups for six straight years? It couldn’t possibly be any worse.
5. DingDong | October 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Craig: I don’t know, how would I know how smart Obama is, he won’t release any of his college records. The Democrats have had control of the house and senate for two years, what did they do? I am not that big of a George fan, but we have not had another terrorist attack. But no comments from you about Pelosi, and voter fraud.
6. Craig Knauss | October 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review and didn’t graduate anywhere near the bottom of his class, like McCain did. And what difference does it make anyway? Bush graduated near the bottom too, and still got elected, twice.
The Dems have controlled both houses since Jan. 2007. That’s 22 months, not two years. And the control of the Senate is a technicality since it is basically even. The Dems can’t even remotely override a Bush veto unless they get substantial Repub help.
No terrorists attacks? Oh, you mean over here and not in Afghanistan or Iraq, where they are almost a daily event? Or do you mean all those massacres at our colleges? Don’t they count? And don’t forget about our scumsucking skinhead buddies.
Voter fraud? Like in Florida in 2000 or in Ohio in 2004? Some voter fraud is committed by the people who count the votes, too.
So what would Obama do? Why don’t you tell us? You always do.
7. PeterGunn | October 29th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Elections have CONSEQUENCES !
All the spit drippers will now have to go into White Water Mode whilst the rest of America works to undo the colossal damage that eight years of ideological rule has wrought
Someone need’s to take a snapshot of
America right now before the revisionist go into high propaganda mode trying to convince us that Bush was the best President we’ve ever had, How the Economy was never better, Blathering on and on until they succeed,
( At least in their own minds)
Much the same way they did with Ronny Raygun.
It was ALL Carters er ah …. Clintons, Ah, … I mean Obama’s fault,
Yea, That’s the ticket
8. DingDong | October 29th, 2008 at 8:58 am
No they are not hiding anything. Show me the evidence of voter fraud in 2000 and 2004. Those were all investigated and found to be untrue. So you are saying the military votes should not be counted? PETERIDIOT: Obama is the one who sat in a racist church for 20 years. I went to a church that the pastor start blaming Jewish people for the worlds problems, I promptly got up and left and never went back.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil dummy. What does the attacks on college campuses have to do with it?
WHY WILL OBAMA NOT RELEASE HIS RECORDS?
WHY WILL PELOSI NOT STEP IN AND HELP THE MILITARY VOTE?
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21310185/ballot_battle.htm?pageid=27100
9. LP | March 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Just came across this and thought I would revisit. The author states before the election that the “Redistributionist-in-chief” comment was a distortion of an Obama comment a few years ago. I think now that we have seen his first month in office with the “stimulus” and his budget proposal, we can all agree that “Redistributionist-in-chief” is an accurate description of Obama. Isn’t socialism grand?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed