Was his response to Joe the Plumber a slip-up or was it our first real look into what this man truly believes?  Look, I won’t re-summarize here what this 2001 Obama interview says.  Ed Morrisey of Hot Air has already performed that task much better than I ever could.  But, I will add to his commentary with an observation of my own:

Obama said, “…that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or a State government must do on your behalf…”

Excuse me?  One of the things that is so wonderful about our Constitution and the vision of our founders is that they wanted to put down on paper a government that would be LIMITED in how far it could reach.  Furthermore, I would not agree with mister Obama in that the Constitution is strictly a collection of prohibitory rules.  It provides a stict and limited list of powers and duties of the Federal government, then explicitly states, “if it ain’t covered here, it’s reserved for the States or the people themselves.”  It was intentional.  It was genius.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/27/smells-like-socialist-spirit/

Like any good socialist, mister Obama has time and again shown that he believes that it is government’s duty (and within government’s power) to provide for as many of its citizens needs as possible – and to achieve that goal, government’s power must be absolute in order for it to make those determinations for ”the collective good” of the people.  This is not conjecture or spin on the part of conservatives who want to paint an ugly picture of him.  The words come directly from his mouth.  Furthermore, in this 2001 interview, he even goes beyond arguing the intent of our founders or any interpretation of what the Constitution provides.  He openly advocated scrapping the Constitution because it does not adequately address the things that government is required, or empowered, to do on your behalf.  I’m no political science scholar, but I doubt any “mainstream” candidate, much less one who seems to be only a week away from winning the Presidency, has ever dared uttered such thoughts openly.  But this man has - and either the people aren’t hearing it, they’re too stupid to understand what it all means, or (gulp) the people agree that’s the path on which they wish to proceed.

So what I see right now is beyond “progressive” or even “radical”.  This man is fully steeped in absolutely destroying the ideals on which this nation is established, if given carte blanche or if enabled through some good blocks from the willing offensive lines of a supermajority Congress and press corps.  My only hope is that the Congressional slaughter is not as bad as some project and that enough of our citizenry will have buyer’s remorse by the time the 2010 midterms get here.  Putting some shackles on Obama’s socialist enthusiasm may be our only way of retaining an America that somewhat resembles the great nation is once was.  Wait…  “Shackles” probably wasn’t the best word to use.  Surely, that would be construed as racist.

Regardless what he’s said or not said on the campaign trail, Mister Obama has a history of being associated with socialists – and this is not simply a case of loose or fleeting informal associations with people who are later discovered to have socialist tendencies.  No, in fact the man actually actively participated in, joined the ranks of, was endorsed by, and enjoyed the spoils of political victory along with local chapters of socialist political organizations.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/10/senator-obama-signed-contract-with.html

But now we hear that calling Mister Obama a “socialist” or linking him to the socialist idelology is actually a code word for a racial slur.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493

Unfortunately, it appears that the MSM has made it official: ANY dissent or criticism of Obama, his positions, his associations, or his campaign proves you are a racist.  And if you criticize the press for being in the tank for the man, they will destroy you.  Ask Joe the plumber.

Mark Steyn, my favorite Canadian, succinctly nails it in this piece about “redistribution of wealth” via the free market versus redistribution through government edict.  But what’s even more interesting are his quotes from various Obamamaniacs’ endorsements.   Sounds like they want him to be more like…McCain… 

Well, he’s finally saying what needs to be said, but is it too late?  Latest polls show Obama up another 2 points in the Rasmussen national poll this morning (up to 52%, the highest anyone has been in a poll this year.)

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/06/mccain-blasts-obama-democrats-for-fannie-mae-meltdown/

Go Get'em John

McCain - Obama Tied in Election - Image Source Dallas Morning News

The subject of an e-mail I received today from our conservative friend read like this – Thankfully, we didn’t have to learn this in civics class.

This article goes through possible scenarios if the electoral college votes are tied on Election Day.  This makes my head hurt.

Will McCain waste Palin?  Perhaps for this election.  But the more appropriate question is, “Will Palin be wasted politically by this campaign?”  No, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of her.  I think that, if Obama strolls into the White House next January, Palin will go back to AK, where she will use the political capital she has banked through this national exposure to truly become that pit bull that the Republican Party so desperately needs.  I don’t know if she’ll run again on a presidential ticket (certainly not in 2012), but I bet she’ll begin casting her gaze beyond the Alaskan horizon and into national politics within the next 4-6 years.  Rep. Palin, Sen. Palin, RNC advisor/chairperson…the possibilities are endless for her.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169345090449893.html