The New Republic

McCain, Palin and the rest of the GOP have repeatedly used the term welfare to refer to Obama's fiscal plans, something he could established in about 30 seconds with a Google News search.  Is Feeney being disingenuous or just lazy?

- FWright

October 30, 2008 at 10:53am

I love that the New York Post is what they consider a "leading" paper - yeah, that's credible. Don't forget about the radio interview Obama did in 2001 that the Republicans have been pushing as proof that Obama wants to redistribute wealth to Black people. They are trying mightily to play on those fears - this crowd just isn't as good at as Rove is.

- mcgumbleton

October 30, 2008 at 10:54am

Tee hee, I just LOVE it when reality bends these Apologists over and buggers them dry.  "at least slightly more tethered to plausibility" - as in, when the German army was within 50 km of Moscow, Stalin allowed that this was "at least slightly more tethered to plausibility" that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was violated.

"To take from you and give it to others" - I don't exactly know how deeply reptilian your mind has to be to connect that to "welfare".  Of course, McCain can't be sure that his supporters are bright enough to get it, and so his camp has to bring up welfare too - but that, is just the final turd on the sewage heap of Republican messaging.  And, honestly, is Feeney suggesting that Republican messages have not got more "refined" and subtle since Reagan's "Welfare-Queen" race-baiting?

- icarusr

October 30, 2008 at 11:03am

"Is Feeney being disingenuous or just lazy?"

No one ever lost a buck betting on the lack of good faith of conservative shills.  Disingenuous, until proven otherwise.  And even then, disingenuous, because of my own increasing "tribal animus, to locate an Other and marginalize it", the "Other" being anyone who considers POWPOW and the Palin remotely worthy of respect.

- icarusr

October 30, 2008 at 11:10am

I think a move from 90% likely to be true to 95% likely to be true is indeed, slight. And technically, more tethered to reality. Although they were already there to begin with.

- miceelf

October 30, 2008 at 11:52am

Yes, well that couldn't be any clearer.

One thing to note here. With few exceptions, McCain's rhetoric and message has basically being scripted for the last few weeks- from Joe the Plumber to yesterday's 'this message was paid for by broken promises'- by the hard core xenophobic right, e.g. the National Review and Matt Drudge readership. I don't know how sensible that is as an electoral strategy- though certainly it goes to the deep sense of panic amongst Republicans- but that fact does remove all doubt as to the dark nether regions of the conservative soul from which this script is being read.

Perhaps this election will be a referendum on race relations after all.

- I Majorajam

October 30, 2008 at 12:08pm

One problem conservatives have here is that the smear is based on a lie - Obama's not a socialist or redistributionist in any meaningful sense of the words (or no more of one than any other American politician, including McCain). So, McCain's words can't actually mean what they say; instead, they're supposed to convey an impression. But, since the premise is a lie, the impression is a priori (ipso facto?) at variance with reality. So, what impression is McCain trying to convey? He's invited us into mindreading territory, but he says certain plausible interpretations of what he might mean are off-limits. I guess it's like Joe-the-P with Shepard Smith: "Look, I can't give any evidence to back up what I'm saying, but if you go out and look for it yourself, I'm sure you'll find it."  

Has McCain helped us read his mind on this issue, so we can have a few more clues about what he really means by redistribution? No, because he can't. To speak truthfully, he'd have to say "I think the concept of a progressive income tax is flawed - it's an outrage that the rich pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the poor." Of course, he can't say this, because (a) he doesn't actually believe it, (b) most Americans support progressive tax rates too and (c) that's not really the point he's trying to make. So, he flops around without explaining what he means until the interviewer changes the subject, leaving it to the rest of us to fill in the blanks. But, watch what you put in those blanks!

- Geoff G

October 30, 2008 at 12:22pm

Why don't Republicans discuss, or Obama counter with, the real distribution of wealth in this country - from the mainly Blue donor states to the Red recipient states.  Liberal, well educated, high income earners living in Blue states send more to Washington then they receive back.  Conversely, the Red states, so disdainful of Big Gummint, suckle off the Federal teat, the leader being of course, Alaska.  Coupled with the royalties taken from hard working oil companies and their shareholders, Alaskans roll in welfare payments.  

- dubyadoubte

October 30, 2008 at 1:24pm

mcgumbleton,

I noticed that too.  Also, the Pittsburgh paper quoted, the Tribune-Review, is the one owned by Richard Mellon Scaife.  The NYPost and Pittsburgh T-R, bastions of journalistic integrity!

- mundye

October 30, 2008 at 3:01pm

For the gullible, deluded or disengenous few who refused to believe that Mcain's "spread the wealth" criticism wasn't racist code, see below:

10.30.08 -- 1:38PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (67)

Race-Baiter McCain

New McCain Line: Obama's taking your money to give to his welfare-lovin' peeps.

Active content removed Active content removed

Judis could see it yesterday before McCain uncorked this latest belch of his filth.

--Josh Marsh

- tec619

October 30, 2008 at 4:49pm

mundye -

Thanks for that tidbit - I didn't know RMS was the owner of the other highlighted paper but I suspected it couldn't be all that if it was keeping good company w/ the NY Post.  Don't know why they don't just quote Town Hall and be done with it!

- mcgumbleton

October 30, 2008 at 4:52pm

There is no doubt that McCain is trying to split low-wage, working people against those who don't work - welfare, unemployment, SSi, whatever.   By saying that almost 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, McCain implied that Obama's plan would 'give money' to those who don't pay taxes.  The truth is that every working American pays pay-rolll tax for (at least) social security, medicare, and unemployment.

I work in the Obama 800 number call center.  The first time I heard of this 'spread the wealth' charge was from a woman who made less than $40,000 and was worried that her taxes would go to people on welfare, etc.  This is what McCain wanted people to think.  There is no doubt that McCain was playing a more sophisticated version of Reagan's 'welfare queen' as the enemy of the middle class.  In fact, this woman would be eligible for several tax credits.  People who don't work are not covered by this program.  Period.

Geoff G. is right.  However, another McCain smear appears to be failing, according to polls.

- CAMtwo

October 30, 2008 at 10:19pm