ANOTHER RETRACTION: Being fair to Barack....
In the interest of the scrupulous fairness, I've deleted a post from Monday repeating a charge made by Drudge that Barack Obama had called in a 2001 Chicago radio interview for the Supreme Court to pursue the redistribution of wealth.
The post contained a YouTube recording of the interview. Listening to it carefully, I must concede that I was connecting dots Obama did not necessarily draw. What he said in that interview was essentially three things: 1) that the Court had not pursued the redistribution of wealth as a fundamental right in the same way that it had pursued issues like voting rights and access to public accomodations; 2) that the Constitution "at least as traditionally interpreted" would not have been friendly to such an initiative by the Court, which was in any event institutionally unprepared to pursue it; and 3) that legislative and political activity toward that end was desirable.
I still maintain that it is reasonable to hear his comments about the failure of the Court to pursue income redistribution as reflecting regret. But there is a difference between what one understands from one's tone, and what his words actually say- and Obama did not actually say that the Supreme Court should have pursued the redistribution of wealth, as my headline- and Drudge's- stated.
That Obama favors income redistribution is at this point beyond challenge. But in fairness, he did not actually advocate that it take place by judicial fiat, and my inference to the contrary should not have been stated as fact.
The post contained a YouTube recording of the interview. Listening to it carefully, I must concede that I was connecting dots Obama did not necessarily draw. What he said in that interview was essentially three things: 1) that the Court had not pursued the redistribution of wealth as a fundamental right in the same way that it had pursued issues like voting rights and access to public accomodations; 2) that the Constitution "at least as traditionally interpreted" would not have been friendly to such an initiative by the Court, which was in any event institutionally unprepared to pursue it; and 3) that legislative and political activity toward that end was desirable.
I still maintain that it is reasonable to hear his comments about the failure of the Court to pursue income redistribution as reflecting regret. But there is a difference between what one understands from one's tone, and what his words actually say- and Obama did not actually say that the Supreme Court should have pursued the redistribution of wealth, as my headline- and Drudge's- stated.
That Obama favors income redistribution is at this point beyond challenge. But in fairness, he did not actually advocate that it take place by judicial fiat, and my inference to the contrary should not have been stated as fact.
Comments