The media really, really, really doesn’t want to talk about Obama and redistribution
While I thought the more precise parallel with Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” video was Obama’s “bitter clingers” diatribe, but a different audio clip has gained a great deal of attention over the past few days: Obama telling a university conference “I actually believe in redistribution” in 1998.
This clip really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, since one of the greatest moments of peril for the Obama 2008 campaign was his encounter with Joe Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” in which Obama explained the joys of wealth redistribution as follows: “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna to be good for everybody.”
Obama went on to explain that redistributive socialist policies would help Joe’s prospective business, because “if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Most people remember the famous “spread the wealth around” quote, but do you recall how this conversation began? It started when Joe told Barack that he was planning to “buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” and he was worried that Obama’s policies would raise his taxes.
Why, that’s precisely the beginning of the income bracket that Barack Obama is now desperate to tax the living hell out of! Individuals who make less than $200,000 a year, and married couples who pull down less than $250,000, are noble and saintly folk who are already paying their “fair share,” but everyone who makes more (including the large portion of small businesses which report their revenues as personal income) is a greedy predator, and our federal debt crisis was caused almost entirely by the big party they threw for themselves with their ill-gotten Bush tax cut loot.
Remember how the media dealt with this incident? With help from Obama operatives, they immediately changed the subject to a full-bore attack on… Joe Wurzelbacher, who was portrayed as shady character whose background had to be urgently investigated, including flagrant violations of Ohio state law. Nothing Obama said to him really counted, because Joe was either the devil or an agent of the Republican Party, whichever was worse. It didn’t matter that Obama was the one who strolled up to Joe and initiated the conversation.
But that sort of thinking doesn’t seem to apply to this Mitt Romney “47 percent” tape, does it? It doesn’t matter that it was created under mysterious circumstances, hoarded for months, and ultimately provided to a far-left magazine by Jimmy Carter’s unemployed grandson. It doesn’t even matter that Mother Jones magazine was caught willfully misleading readers about the fact that the “complete” tape is actually missing two minutes.
Which brings us back to Obama and his love of redistribution, because MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell absolutely refuses to play that 1998 tape of Obama speaking to the university conference. Why? Because she claims it can’t be “authenticated.” Even though the Obama campaign confirmed on Tuesday that it’s authentic.
So, if Mitt Romney’s the one whose goose is supposedly cooked over this “47 percent” video, why are Obama’s most loyal sycophants the ones acting so frightened and defensive, as this great national discussion of dependency and redistribution gets under way?