YOUR COMMENTS

Elaine: "Why didn't Congress with the democrats in control do anything about the so-called "problems" they now want to blame on Bush?"
If you don't have a fundamental understanding of govt perhaps you should return to grade school. The democrats had a 1 seat majority in the senate. Filibusters take place if you have less than 60 supporters. Even 60 supporters would fail to overturn a Bush Veto.

"Since when is it the governments duty to decide how charitable anyone should be?" Umm, you realize that the $700 Billion bailout was the biggest charity event in US history? Thanks deregulation (read Bush, McCain)
- Chip Sanders, Wilton

You can take whatever meaning out of that editorial as you want to. Liberals will argue it means one thing, conservatives argue it means another. Reading the comments leads me to one conclusion; this country is very divided and to blame the current occupant of the White House for everything is normal politics. Why didn't Congress with the democrats in control do anything about the so-called "problems" they now want to blame on Bush?

The article and comments by the UL were on the "editorial" pages; a place where people write their own opinions. I am laughing at the ridiculous comments and snide remarks posted. What I have yet to see posted is the plain fact that most people supporting Obama are under the impression that they will not have to work to succeed; Uncle O will take care of their every need. It is my belief that this will kill any desire to work hard to get ahead and create a society of sloths. What would the incentive be to get ahead and make something of yourself if when you do, Uncle O will be there saying "you made too much money" you need to share it with those who don't have as much as you. Since when is it the governments duty to decide how charitable anyone should be? We are a nation of very charitable people and that will end if government takes more and more.

Keep in mind one thing..the so called big corporations that O wants to tax more will leave this country and do business in countries that have less taxes. Also no corporation ever really pays taxes, they pass the cost on to their customers and teh prices of their products. So anyone who thinks any of the big corporations are going to suffer for their "past crimes" are misleading themselves.
- Elaine A. Julian, goffstown

What some of you fail to realize is, the "Divide and Conquer" strategy used by the Republicans has long been their best weapon to gain public support and beat their opposition in elections. I personally think these scare tactics and rumors are too little too late.
To quote the mantra of the Repub's, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago"? If so, vote for the current administration with its new CEO - John McCain.
- Jeff, Longwood FL (native NH born and raised)

Jackson

You're absolutely right--I don't have any problem at all with my tax dollars being used to support a military that protects us. After all, this obligation of the federal government is delineated in Article 1 of the Constitution.

What I do have a problem with is the use of my tax dollars on indigent bums who do nothing FOR our country--except take FROM it.

Hardworking, tax-paying Americans deserve better than this. On election day, it'll be "No-bama" for me.
- Susie Nickerson, Horseshoe Bay, Texas (NH native)

Oddly, the Union Leader didn't object when the Reagan revolution, and its successors, redistributed wealth upward. I would be ashamed to try to finagle money from people who have little, like some political Elmer Gantry. If you have no shame, I am sorry for you.
- James Wilson, Plantation Florida

If you dislike redistribution of wealth - grow your own food, pave your own road, and mold the helmet of your loved one fighting in Iraq. Taxes and redistributing revenues is how our country supports our troops and enables efficient production and commerce.

If that is socialist then we are all guilty.
- Jackson McBride, Connecticut

Lucy - So I have to get over myself?

Now, that will be a challenge, but I won't be doing it over what Obama said seven years ago that presages beliefs that he has apparently carried over to the present time.
If Ayers can be not repentant today over "not doing enough" some twenty-odd years ago, why is it so difficult to accept that Obama cannot continue to have beliefs today that he had a mere seven years ago? Is that so farfetched?
Let's be clear: I'm not accusing Obama of being a terrorist. I'm only drawing the parallel that as Ayers has not changed his stripes in more than 20 years, it is very possible that Obama has not changed his, either.

If you truly accept that what Obama is saying now is "amazing, life-changing and is kicking McCain's ass", fine, go ahead and do so. But don't preach to me about "getting over myself". You, too, should consider going down that same road.

I happen to think that some of the things Obama is saying now are definitely life-changing, but do not augur well for our nation. So sue me.
- Guy Plante, Manchester

Lucy Phyllice of Greenfield, You also need to get over youself. When determining who you want to vote for youonly have what a candidate tells you and his voting record. Good looks and smooth talking don't mean a thing. If Barack does not believe now what he said in 2001 he should just come out andand tell us that his feelings of constitutional wealth distribution is now a bad Idea. It is his jub to explain what he said not you.
He has been known to change his mind such as his views that the surge didn't work, offshore drilling, gun control etc.
- Mark Dembeck, Houston,TX

"It was a tragedy, he said, that it did not grant the government the power to reorder society more fundamentally."

From the Associated Press:

What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, "how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity."
- Leo Thomas, Jacksonville, FL

Your editorial is a blatant misrepresentation of what Obama said. Learn to try to understand what people mean, not just projecting your fears onto them.
- Rick Wicks, Anchorage, Alaska

I am a self employed, gun carrying, libertarian minded independent from NH. I have been here my entire life. For some reason I am no longer welcome in the "big tent" that is the GOP.

This editorial is gutter politics and beneath the intelligence of NH voters. The GOP has become a bumper sticker, hack political machine. I remain independent for a reason as I have many issues with the Dems but the differences in this campaign are astounding.

McCarthyism has a shelf life and the Republicans latest supply is past its due date. This editorial seeks nothing more than to further a campaign slogan regardless of facts, context or reason. I encourage everyone to read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense".

He wrote:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

The UL should write an editorial based on the quote.
- John Robinson, Keene, NH

So Obama faults the Constitution because it fails to delineate "what the federal government or the state government MUST do on your behalf?" Wow! Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?" I believe the man who said this was of the same political party.

But what's he bellyaching about? As a senator, all he had to do was propose a constitutional amendment. Why didn't he?

Ah, but on the other hand, as president, all he'll have to do is assemble an "Obama Court," since he'll already have the House and Senate in his back pocket. That way, he won't encounter any problems at all enacting a BIG CHANGE to our Constitution -- one that metes out "economic justice" (i.e., the "redistribution of wealth") according to his wacky credo!
- Susie Nickerson, Horseshoe Bay, Texas

If you can somehow twist Obama's words into something positive for him, I fear you may be on the verge of cult-like allegiance.

The Constitution is to protect us from the Government, not to force the Government and what it feels is best, upon us. If you do not see the distinction, and embrace the former over the latter, you do not understand the grand experiment that is America.

In your haste to rebel against a horrible President, you are ready to elect someone who professes to not even believe in the basic premise of our most central document. But he has artfully cloaked all his detractors’ attacks behind fear mongering and racism.
- Jeff Hedgpeth, Glendale, AZ

This article says very little of substance, in fact, I would consider it too brief and baseless to be called an article. I've seen YouTube comments with more background and evidence. Basically you have decided that taxes equate to "slavery" and that Obama is a "socialist" because he believes that that taxes should be returned to the people. Remember everyone is getting taxed, the rich are simply losing their tax cuts that they got from Bush. Any act, bill, or initiative that takes taxpayer money and invests it in something can be considered "spreading the wealth around." The fact that the richest people don't get a tax cut does not mean they are enslaved. Nest time, please write an article with substance and refutable claims that can actually be backed up. And please make sure you know what you are talking about.
- Matt Corrigan, Brookline, MA

Guy Plante, you need to get over yourself. Every other person on every other McCain article is saying the exact same thing. This whole article is ridiculous. Despite the fact that some people think every single thing that a person has ever said means that they still believe it is actually not true. I'm pretty sure you said some things seven years ago that you don't necessarily agree with now. If you don't like what Obama said then, go look at some of the things he says now. Because they are amazing, life-changing, and kick McCain's ass.
- Lucy Phyllice, Greenfield

It strikes me that this editorial may have simply responded to other stories made about this interview or, alternatively, simply jumped at buzz words in anger. The interview itself is amusing, because Obama is voicing the opinion that the court system has no place in any sort of wealth redestribution, which is the one supported by conservatives of the time during the Civil Rights movement, in opposition to the liberal judges and lawyers. The tragedy he speaks of is the fact the civil rights movement focused on the courts in this way, when presumably other avenues may have had greater effect in leveling the playing field.

Furthermore, Obama is not a Marxist, and "wealth redistribution" is not the key to socialism... public control over the means of production is... This is a fundamental flaw in the claims that Obama is a Marxist.

On the subject of wealth redistribution, all major candidates support it. Some people seem to miss the fact that this country is full of such programs, many of which are supported equally by Democrats as by Republicans, and supported equally by Mccain as by Obama. Sure, Obama wants to roll back tax cuts on the top bracket and cut taxes on the middle, and this can be seen as a form of redistribution, but this is NOT SOCIALISM. There is NO change in who is controlling the means of production in this plan.
- John Soghigian, Worcester, MA

In Ohio, we have state officials (Barack Obama supporter) authorizing illegal searches into a private citizen's records ("Joe the plumber") that somehow got out into the press. In Illinois, we have Barack Obama supporters being mobilized by the campaign (Action Wire) to shut down someone who speaks in opposition to Barack Obama. We have the campaign itself freezing out news organization because they don't like the questions being asked.

And you're worried about Fox News? Really?

Mr. Obama has been very clear on many occasions that he believes one of the functions of government is to ensure 'economic justice' through wealth redistribution. I don't find that anywhere in the Constitution.

If you agree with Mr. Obama, you should vote for him.

I don't. I won't.
- Bob Reeves, Mansfield, TX

Mike Lane from Manchester posted above "The quote attributed to Barack Obama "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth" never occurred. He wasn't taken out of context. It is a lie."

Well Mike, here's a copy of a section of the transcript of the radio discussion. The numbers are the time stamps on the audio of the show.

At 40:10 "but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties"

Obama is lamenting the fact that the court didn't go there. Note also his "at least as it has been interpreted" clearly raising the issue that he thinks there can be another interpretation.

His "tragedies" reference was that the civil rights movement became "court focused". He went on to say "i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that".

Let's see, "are able to bring about coalitions of power..."; bring about "redistributive change..."

Who's the liar Mike?
- John M, Westfield, NJ

This editorial is a compelling argument to elect Obama.

Obama strongly advocates for higher educational standards - and would require that all US students achieve fundamental reading and comprehension skills.

The editor who wrote this piece clearly did not understand what Obama said, falsely interpreted it, and then went off on a rant about the misinterpretation.

Reading is fundamental! If you don't understand something, don't get mad -- raise your hand and ask for help!
- Susan Sundell, Salem NH

In every election, there will be numerous points upon which legitimate disagreements can be made, but it is essential that we avoid the logical fallacy often described as the “straw man” argument. In short, let’s represent the positions taken by our opponents accurately before responding. Otherwise, we will be engaged in partisanship rather than politics. The editors of the Union Leader should have examined Sen. Obama’s comments closely before publishing this editorial. Instead, they have merely seconded opinions found on certain republican blogs.

In this interview, Sen. Obama is clearly asserting that it is inappropriate to mandate government economic programs through judicial fiat. The rights entailed by the U.S. Constitution tell us only what the government cannot do, not what it should do. Sen. Obama’s argument - at least in this instance - is solidly opposed to judicial activism. This position is generally regarded as conservative. Does the Union Leader really disagree with Sen. Obama on this point?

Yours respectfully,

M. Dermot O’Brien
- M. Dermot O'Brien, Newmarket

We should not have to choose between socialism and fascism time after time. They both want to use the power of government to take your money and spend it how they see fit. They both shred the USC to suit them.

Until people wise up to this and demand smaller, Constitutional government we will get more of the same, nomatter who gets into office.

Vote 3rd Party, at least you'll sleep at night. Invest in silver, gold and ammunition while they are still available.
- BaRbArIaN, Strafford County

In social democracies the world over, the redistribution of wealth via a progressive tax code is the norm. If you're affluent, you pay more taxes than those that aren't. As a result, people in other advanced democracies don't have to worry about losing whatever wealth they're accumulated because of serious illness or lack of a job. It's all about the "social contract" and establishing a safety net to help those who fall on troubled times. Why more Americans don't aspire to that beats me. Ranting on about "socialism" and how "spreading the wealth" is like killing babies makes it seem like many of us have lost our sense of human decency.
- Gerald, Portsmouth, NH

The UL betrays the independent spirit that the Granite State is famous for when it simply parrots the RNC's talking points day after day in its editorials.

Today is no different. From the sound of it, you wouldn't know that McCain is also a proponent of a progressive tax policy, which is suddenly-in order to scare the electorate and get votes- referred to as 'socialism'. And yes- how do you explain Gov. Palin redistributing all that oil wealth?

Distort. Denigrate. Demonize. Divide. Same old playbook. Obviously the UL editorial board- like their candidate- hopped off the straight-talk express a long time ago.
- Dave MacCrellish, Sandwich, NH

Was this editorial reprinted from The Onion? It's hilarious! Perhaps we should get rid of Veterans benefits, Veterans hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment insurance, Veterans education benefits, and on and on. Only trickle down will do for the UL. We all saw how well that worked. Who needs comics with editorials like this?
- ed, londonderry

It takes a lot of chutzpah to complain about Obama and destruction of the Constitution while remaining eerily silent about the man who has show more contempt for the Constitution -- that would be the current occupant of the White House. On a daily basis we have these wildly hysterical claims against Obama hoping, against hope, that just one will stick. We expect that from the RNC. We don't expect newspapers to engage in the same mindless drivel.
- Phil Ryan, Tampa, Florida

The quote attributed to Barack Obama "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth" never occurred. He wasn't taken out of context. It is a lie.

The Union Leader knows this quote is a fabrication and is allowing it to be perpetuated anyways for ideological reasons.

At no point did Obama claim that it was a bad thing that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth". He was simply stating a fact that it is not the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution to do so. And he is right. He says explicitly that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties", defining what the government can't do to you and says nothing about what the government must do on your behalf. Sounds like a conservative constitutional position to me.

As we watch the modern conservative movement die before our very eyes (largely from self inflicted wounds) its' death throes are getting uglier and uglier.
- Mike Lane, Manchester

Phillip Sims nailed it in his post, leaving little for me to write. Especially when he ended by saying that it would be fair under Obama - we would all be equally miserable. It confounds me that this guy could be so close to becoming President of the United States! No experience, radical associations and beliefs, and a desire to bring about socialism. Great combination, huh?
- Steve Barg, Ripon, WI

So Senator Obama is hammered by the UL because he embraces the conservative philosophy on the peril of judicial activism. He notes that any change should come by the political process and not impose by judges because this not the role of the supreme court. This is the most dishonest editorial that i have ever read from a Newspaper. Yesterday, this audio was dissected by conservative scholars of the constitution and they all came to the conclusion that there is not much to see here.
- joelle bonds, lancaster, ca

It is always easy, and clever to look at comments (Republican or Democrat) and frame them in a way that supports your argument.

This is an example of that cleverness.

And the Democrats are just as good at it...
- Derrick, Bucks County, PA

All of us including Democrats should be seriously concerned about electing someone who was a member of a socialist party (The NEW PARTY) as late as 1996 and who makes such rambling, erratic statements and lies about who he will tax and not tax. This neophyte socialist is a puppet of Soros and has a world agenda...and only cares about himself.

Racism and class warfare that he has used is despicable. People who make $250K are not 'rich' and yet, he has been able to run a campaign of hate for these citizens who pay up to 50% of their income in taxes.

Our founders rebelled for 4% so this should NOT be toleratred.

All sensible people need to reject this Marxist FRINGE candidate who is nothing more than a Che Guevara radical left over from the 1960s.
- Jane Aitken, Bedford

See also Professor Steven Calabresi in today's Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Obama...believes--and he is quite open about this--that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit." Overriding the Constitution and law. Prof. Calabresi's op-ed (page A17) explains the significance of this in terms of the judiciary vacancies Obama will be allowed to fill.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

What about the redistribution of wealth upward? Is that constitutionally allowed? Hasn't that been set up by tax and regulatory policy over the past eight years? Have the courts complained that the redistribution of wealth have resulted in the highest disparity in income since the Depression? Under Reagan, I had one of the highest tax increases ever under TEFRA and other 1986-88 tax increases. I was a Republican until 2002 and I have watched as the wealthiest of us have had their taxes reduced over the past twenty years while the rest of us have paid more and more. Our incomes have fallen relative to the wealthiest. The excuse is job creation. It doesn't help when they take their tax rebate and create jobs overseas.
- Sam Brown, Roseville, CA

You left wing, big tax, big government folks never learn. I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio and spent many years in upstate NY during and after college, paying outrageous taxes and fees. When my wife, kids, and I got an invitation from our local city government to come by the fire house to pick up a free brick of cheese and a ham, because we met "income eligibility," I decided I'd had enough. We did what millions of other thinking Americans have done: we moved south, where the taxes are low and where the rust belt jobs had gone. We love it here!

Now liberals want to do to America what they've done to New England and the Great Lakes. Tax, spend, and ultimately, chase jobs and productivity offshore. Won't it be a delight when all of America looks like the blighted citie
s of Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, the rest of the Niagara Frontier and upstate NY? Congratulations, at least it will be fair: everybody will be equally miserable.
- Phillip Sims, Atlanta, GA

Nancy Taylor, though the original topic is civil-rights rulings of the Supreme Court, this editorial talks about beliefs and ideologies, not skin color. Neither this nor most other opposition to Barack Obama is because we hate him because of a superficial dislike of his skin color. We do not wake up plotting to make all black people fail. Do you have anything other than cheap shots? Can you persuade rather than manipulate?
- Spike, Brentwood NH

I only have one comment: Excellent.
And for the critics I have another comment:
The worst blindness comes from those who don't want to see.
- Rosa Townsend, Miami

I agree with the writer. Mr. Obama's intent is and has evidently always been to re-shape the courts and thereby re-write the constitution. Wealth redistribution or confiscatory taxation is exactly what the colonists and eventually the framers of the constitution were trying to guard against. Mr. Obama and his democrat cronies Reed, Pelosi, etc. must not be allowed to ruin this nation.
- Jeff Lapin, Shingle Springs, CA

McCain/Palin and UL accuse Obama of advocating socialist policies that, it is claimed, are inimical to the American Way. Milton Friedman wrote that socialism results when wealth is expropriated by the state and distributed to those who didn't earn it. In Alaska, Gov. Palin increased the tax per barrel of oil produced by energy companies. She then gave to Alaskan residents, a mere 680000, a 1200 dollar check, which amounted to three-quarters of a billion dollars. Save for living in Alaska, its residents did nothing to earn that bounty.
This transfer of wealth is nothing more than theft from the oil companys' legitimate owners, its stockholders, to benefit undeserving Alaskans. That this process is legitimated by Gov. Palin and the state legislature doesn't make it any less coercive and a violation of the constitution.
If this isn't socialism, then it must be a Republican version of class warfare.
- John S Zawacki, Wellfleet, MA

After carefully examing Obama's past associations, theories on constitutional law, voting record and recent political comments, it should relatively transparent to the voting public, despite the mainstream media coverup, that Obama is indeed a Maxist. He carries with him a lifetime of resentment against American established institutions in which he feels a segment of society has been historically blocked. This is no longer 1950's America. Yes, prejudice still remains; however, most would agree that there is now virtually an equal playing field for all Americans to succed with talent, hard work, and creativity.

Obama has an angry chip on his shoulder and intents to reshape America to make up for what perceives as historical injustices that no longer exist. He hides it well with his eloquence , but make no mistake about it, he hates America. Wake up and read underneath his rehearsed, polished phrases, digest his wife's comments, and his pastor's language. Lets send this man packing!
- Vincent Caruana, Bedford NH

"The Constitution protects us from people like Barack Obama." I am not amazed that a paper like yours would say such a thing. Your paper has caused more harm over the years then an Obama Presidency could ever do.
- Bob MacLellan, Henniker

There are two ways to interpret the constitution; you can take what it says literally or make it say what you want it to say. Clearly Obama wants it to say something different.
- Scott Lassley, Springfield, MO

Republicans were quite happy to destroy the Constitution while they were in power. Now Obama will have the ability to make laws ("signing statements"), violate laws at will ("executive priviledge"), arrest people as "enemy combatants" and hold and torture them indefinetly without trial. He can take your property too. You guys should have thought about that before you ripped the Constitution to shreds for eight years.
- Carmi Turchick, Peterborough Ontario

I am disgusted that an "editorial/opinion" piece such as this is published in the UL. Is the purpose of this article to incite racism and play on "white fears" the week before the election? All it shows complete lack of judgement and ignorance on the topic the writer supposedly is able to discuss with readers.
- Nancy Taylor, Bedford

Bah, you can shove it. Everyone has their own view of our constitution. No matter what I am sure his pov re: the constitution will ensure that something as wrong as "The Patriot Act" will never happen again.
- Charles Hornbeck, Chesterfield

Wait, you mean that there is anything left of the Constitution after the last 8 years of "executive privilege"?
- Jason, Londonderry

It seems some UL comment-writers don't know what Obama means by "issues of political and economic justice" despite the consistent use of those terms for 40 years: affording fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society to all. Fairness is good, but sharing the benefits impartially? Our national success is built on the opposite theory, that those who take risks to create value dispropotionately receive the spoils. Economic justice is a pale euphemism for wealth redistribution. No splicing of his argument is necessary, it is as plain as the nose on his face if you ever listen to Rev Wright and others who traffic in this nonsense.
- Tim Austin, Chicago, IL

It's quite telling when the "Your Comments" board offer more articulate, educated and rational views than the editorial itself. Who are the professional writers here? Personally, I think Don from Concord and John from Keene should have gotten paid for their opinons instead of the mystery editorialist. Theirs were definately better researched.
- Breyer Sullivan, Manchester, NH

What the critics of the editorial fail to recognize in their attempt to spin away the impact of this interview is the actual words he used.

"the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution "

There is no separate context here. It's all context and the meaning is plain. Obama is lamenting the failure of the court to break free of the "constraints" placed on it by the Constitution and redistribute the wealth to increase what he calls "political and economic justice". How much more plain can you be?
- Jesse Brown, Purcellville, Va

Obliging Guy Plante from Manchester: you're right, the quotes were taken out of context. I could use about the same level of distortion to argue that using my tax dollars to fund Medicare for seniors amounts to redistribution of my wealth. Why can't you be a responsible voter and read the background material instead of taking your "news" from editorial pieces like this?
- Ann, Intervale, NH

"I am concerned for not just the middle class, yet for the lower class as well. Many people in New Hampshire who make less than $60,000 per year are suffering."

Exactly righteous & true, Mr. Tarr. These people (including both you and me) will do better under Obama's tax plan than under McCain's. Unless you believe the Republicans' same old trickle down theory. Didn't help us little people when we tried it under Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 ... hard to imagine it will work any better under McCain.
- Tom St.Martin, Candia

What is left out of the editorial is Obama's statement about 'reparative redistribution'. Hang onto your seats, friends, because what "The One" (with input from Billy-the-Bomber Ayers and from his mentor 'reverend' Wright) plans is a "reparations strategy" - reparations to blacks to make up for slavery. So what if your ancestors were abolitionists; so what if your ancestors immigrated to America after the Civil War; so what if your ancestors never owned or wanted to own another human being. If you are not black, you will be paying megabucks for "reparations".

With Obama the crooked, anti-American racist in the White House and with a filibuster-proof Senate and with an uber-liberal Dimocrat House, we are going to see a complete transformation of America - - a total "change" as "The One" has been promising all along.

God bless America - we're going to need it.
- Pamela Valentine, Washington NH

The accusations made in the editorial do not hold up to scrutiny. First, as has been reported before, in the two years that this presidential campaign has been going on, people from both parties have been scouring Sen. Obama's writings and speeches from as far back as when he was in kindergarten looking for some indication of his political philosophy. Thus, it is safe to conclude that this passage, rather than having been "recently unearthed," as the editorial claims, has been reviewed by his opponents from the Clinton campaign and other Democratic opponents in the primaries to the McCain campaign in the general campaign. Keep in mind that this passage was from a broadcast on Chicago Public Radio - one of the premier public radio stations in the country. It has hardly been buried for lo these past 7 years. That it has not been quoted until now indicates that there is nothing there.

Furthermore, a reading of the transcript supports this conclusion. Instead of advocating for what the editorial wants to lead us to believe - the forced redistribution of wealth - then-Professor Obama was merely explaining that, contrary to the claims made by many conservative politicians (although, interestingly enough, not by many conservative legal scholars) the Warren Court was not a radical court. Instead, he explained that the Court followed traditional jurisprudential procedures when it made its rulings that finally guaranteed civil rights for the black citizens of this country. He went on to point out that further gains may have been made had the civil rights movement concentrated on legislative change as opposed to changes made by the courts. This is hardly some call, veiled or explicit, for the overturning of the Constitution as written by the Founders.

Finally, the Union-Leader's claim that this shows Sen. Obama's anticonstitutional tendencies rings hollow when one considers how silent the paper was when the current administration pursued its efforts to dramatically weaken the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments to that great Charter and to overwrite the doctrine of Habeas Corpus, deny trial by jury and embrace torture as a means of interrogation. If the paper were truly concerned about the continued viability of the Constitution and the rule of law, I think we would have heard more about that by now.
- Don Josephson, Concord

Obama rails against doctors, oil companies, any any business that produces anything of value for this country. If you are smart and ambitious, you are his target. His tax policies would drive what's left of American business right out of the country.

Obama's idea of socialist government control is to "spread it around."

Thank you for the editorial.
- Bill Howard, Exeter

Great editorial! Finally people who care about our Constitution are speaking up to defend it. We must be vigilant against this Marxist rising around us from our Universities. We have to get people like Bill Ayers OUT of Education. Are we mad allowing him to do his Radical work with our future?
- Vince Pacella, Chicago , IL

It gets tiresome, how Senator Obama's words, are always spun, to manipulate the public.
If you listened to the full interview, as I have, it was more a Constitutional Law primer. He was speaking, specifically, about the Warren Court, and how the Civil Rights Movement focused on the Courts, as opposed to the Legislative Branch (Congress), which has greater Constitutional Authority to effect Social Change. In this case, he was referring to Slavery.
Yup... very radical.
- jon burford, brattleboro, vt

From this readers opinion, I am concerned for not just the middle class, yet for the lower class as well. Many people in New Hampshire who make less than $60,000 per year are suffering. There are those like this reader who make less than $30,000 per year and just get by. How is 'spreading the wealth' going to help me and my family? Many people work very hard for their money and should be able to keep more of it. Yes we need less taxes (no death tax, marriage tax to name a few) so that we can live productive lives. Some of the fees we pay into our state should be allowed to be itemized (upto 50% of total payment) in our IRS tax forms so that we can recoup some of it we paid in. Corporations that are well established in America should pay slightly higher taxes because they do recieve higher profits than a small business owner. Those who decide to outsource jobs should be taxed with an 'out of country tax' so that our national government can keep our economy strong. So 'spreading the wealth' should mean reducing taxes and allowing fees to be recouped to help America grow and continue to stay strong in a global market place.
- Robert M Tarr, Manchester

The UL now thinks the US Constitution has only one purpose and that is to stop Barack Obama?

You wrote, "he envisions a government wholly unconstrained, empowered to enslave one segment of the population, forcing it to work on behalf of another segment..."

Do you not see the irony in your statement given the context of the discussion Obama was having? Was is the UL's stance on slavery given your ridiculous statement? How would you describe the slave/master relationship in the United States?

Sadly, you don't name all of the authors because this one deserved a name. Your use of the word enslaved in this context is sad and silly all at the same time.

You have created a false argument based on a false premise. Fox News, Drudge and now the UL have all joined the fray. The tragedy as stated by Obama was not that the court didn't do more than grant equal rights, the tragedy was that the Civil Rights movement became far too court focused and failed in the area of political and community organizing to change discrimination. Your interpretation is not supported by the quote given let alone being supported by the entire interview.

Who does the UL thinks pays for the military, police, and firefighters? Who pays for roads and maintenance?

Why is my wealth being spread to Iraqi criminals with the full support of the UL? As part of the counter insurgency policy of the US in Iraq, my tax money is being handed to savages to stop them from killing US soldiers.

John McCain voted for the $700 billion dollar bailout. That money is being used for the very things you criticize in this article. He has no standing when he now criticizes the very policy he supported and neither does the UL if he is your candidate.
- John Robinson, Keene, NH

I bet it won't take long for the usual apologists for Obama to comment on here that the whole tape was a "fabrication"! Or that his quotes were taken completely out of context?
- Guy Plante, Manchester