Times Reporter Defends Asking Obama If He’s A “Socialist”
New York Times reporter Peter Baker is defending the paper’s decision to ask President Obama whether he’s a “socialist” in an interview that the paper published over the weekend, saying it was an effort to plumb how the “new president defines his political philosophy.”
The paper’s question — which drew sharp criticism from the left and kudos from the right — read as follows:
The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?
Obama, unsurprisingly, said he wasn’t a socialist, pointing to his vow to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and suggesting that health care and energy reform hardly constitute a wild-eyed radical agenda. After the interview, Obama called the paper back to say that it was hard for him to believe that the paper’s question had been “entirely serious.”
I emailed a Times political editor to ask what the rationale behind the question was and got back the following from Baker, the Times reporter:
The goal of the question was to get at the same issue your sister publication, Newsweek, was addressing with its recent cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now.”
The point is not the label, per se, but the question of whether the times and the solutions under consideration represent some sort of paradigm shift in our national thinking about the role of government in society. In a moment of taxpayer bank bailouts and shifting tax burden proposals and exploding deficits and expansive health care and energy plans, what is the future of American-style capitalism?
We were also interested in exploring how a new president defines his political philosophy, something that has been the subject of intense debate. We wanted to draw him out on all of that and I think his answers, both in the interview itself and the follow-up phone call, were interesting and important.
The unavoidable political context here, though, is that Republicans and conservatives — or “some people,” as the paper put it — are trying to tar Obama as a socialist right now in order to turn the public against his agenda.
Reporters often walk a fine line between asking a politician to respond to the valid or substantive criticism of opponents and asking him to respond to criticism that’s politically motivated, substance-free, or plainly out of touch with reality, which risks doing the bidding of those opponents. It’s tempting to place the “socialist” question in the latter category. But on the other hand, as Baker points out, it did elicit an interesting answer from Obama, and few would dispute that the interview overall was sharp and informative.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
“Tempting to place the “socialist” question in the latter category”? No, the question did fall in the latter category. Had Baker bothered to place the question in context, Obama would not have needed to call back after the interview.
I thought it was a strange question, but I think the NYT like many other big newspapers struggles with the perception that it is part of the “liberal media bias.” A question like this probably placates conservative critics. Also, one other thing to keep in mind is that the NYT never got an interview with Bush (to my recollection) so we can’t really assess how fair/unfair this interview was.
The only thing missing from that article was a question about his citizenship. The New York Times should be phucking ashamed. The asked him if he was a socialist, if he “went liberal” after the election and if he is a socialist, liberal, or a progressive. As a reporter wouldn’t it have behooved them to notice that he hasn’t done one single solitary thing other than exactly what he promised on the campaign trail. Or do facts not matter anymore when you have dumb a$$es calling him a socialist? And what about the question about if anybody had to tell him “thats not the way it works”. I mean seriously I would have thought the questions came from Eric Erickson at Red State. And the fact that they wasted not only their time but ours with such ignorant questions is indefensible. Somehow I doubt the President will be granting the Times an interview again in the near future.
sg — I like the way you found a way around the curse filter. funny.
Greg
.
I post over at swamland and for a time they had a cuss filter nazi that would catch the word a$$ in words like “mass” so I am old hat at it because I am from the Taibbi school of posting lol
I think the question should have been worded better. How ’bout “What do you say to your critics who call you a ’socialist’?” Perhaps then it would have been placed in context instead of implying that it was mainstream America using the ’socialist’ meme.
SchrodingersCat
.
They asked it exactly like they intended as if it was a mainstream point of view. To prove it they followed up with another question and included socialist along with liberal and progressive in asking President Obama to describe his political ideology. Of course keep in mind that some prominent Republicans in Congress have invoked the Socialist smear of Obama so it IS the mainstream of the GOP which should tell people all they need to know about that party.
Baker and his ilk are either way past stupid or have an agenda that is decidedly not liberal.
As if you’re not an “American-style” capitalist, you must then be a socialist. Pathetic.
The Obama administration must excise these words from their pie holes: redistribute, share the wealth, and taking advantage of a crisis.
Don’t go there because those words will be twisted by the likes of Baker.
The problem was not on the question per se, it was on the potential malice behind the question, considering that a lot of Americans don’t know the true meaning of SOCIALISM..w/c for e.g. to the Wingnuts, translates as SOCIALISM reminiscent of the defunct Soviet Union..Cuba.. and the mangled Maoism of China. Obama should have asked that sensation-baiting reporter..SOCIALISM, in what sense, Charlie?—would have rehabilitated Sarah Palin, in the process..ha,ha!
If it’s appropriate to ask Obama if he’s a socialist, it would have been spot on to ask Bush if he was a fascist.
I have a question for Baker. “The NY Times prints a lot of nonsense. Does that make you an idiot, as some have suggested?”
Going back to Reagan era tax rates is socialism?
Hey Peter Baker, are you a dimwit hack auditioning for a job at TMZ because your industry is dying? My point is not the label “dimwit hack”, per se, but the question of whether the times and the solutions under consideration represent some sort of paradigm shift in our national thinking about the role of newspapers in society.
Every time I read some hand-wringing essay about how the demise of our newspapers is going to dramatically harm our democracy, I laugh. It’s precisely interviews like this that reveal the depths of the profound ignorance on the part of reporters like Baker, and of his primary interest in obtaining a “gotcha” moment. If Baker was remotely informed about what socialism really has been historically and philosophically, he would never have framed his question the way he did.
To justify it on the basis of their being an alleged “intense debate” is further confirmation of how cynically Baker is approaching his job. There is no “debate” in any meaningful sense because the whole “debate” is entirely a collection of disingenuous Republican talking points. Neither Obama or anybody else in his administration is advocating the nationalization of whole industries, which is the very core of socialism.
By Baker’s standards, he should have asked Obama if he really was born in the United States and if he was a secret Muslim, since those are questions of “intense debate” by plenty of loons in the Republican Party. In fact, why didn’t Baker ask Obama if he was a child molester? That was one of the smears that was brought up by Republicans in reference to an obscure bill that Obama sponsored while an Illinois legislator. There was “intense debate” about that too, for 15 minutes.
Agh! Should have written:
“To justify it on the basis of there being an “intense debate”…”
Look, it’s gotten too stupid to argue over what to call what Obama is doing. I found out this weekend that 200 architects lost their jobs in Dallas last month. I have a number of lawyer friends, all of whom are my age – not that young – who know they are about to be laid off.
And people are arguing over what to call Obama’s policies. Who cares? Call them Flying Spaghetti Monster policies – who cares? Who cares what it is if it enables you to pay your bills and eat?
“Reporters often walk a fine line between asking a politician to respond to the valid or substantive criticism of opponents and asking him to respond to criticism that’s politically motivated, substance-free, or plainly out of touch with reality…”
Reporters are usually so enamored of themselves that they don’t bother to learn history, the facts, the truth or how to differentiate between right-wing spin and rational discourse.
Un-*****’-believable
Parroting and legitimizing the most ridiculous smears that a wingnut can think up.
That’s doin’ ur job, NYTimes! Stay clueless why newspapers are irrelevant!
more great reporting from the NYTimes
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/junk-journalism-ny-times-division-by.html
In either Canada or any European country, this question wouldn’t be incendiary. Different case for the US because of its unique political history. Pity too, because it is otherwise a good question and a rich discussion.
Another factor that makes this a bit of a ***** is the soundbite nature of modern broadcast journalism. Rich or complex political questions get a two minute hearing and that just isn’t anywhere close to sufficient for careful thought and education, but it’s highly faciliative for the quick smear or the thought-terminating cliche.
I fault the reporter for his preface to the question – the “some people”, which lacks necessary context. He ought to have been more accurate and said “Republicans and others on the political right”.
It’s starting to get busy in here, greg. Trains coming and going every which way.
Look how well we the people have been served over the last few decades. Socialists and non-socialists alike would agree that we are in a hell of a mess. Obama wants to fix it, so the party most recently in power, who gave us such great minds as W, Cheney, Rummy, and Rove, says he is a socialist? Well, if fixing our ruined (by, among others, greedy Wall St CAPITALISTS) economy, our inhumane health care system, our dysfunctional dependance on foreign (Carlyle group: Bush 41) oil, our polluted environment, etc., is socialism- BRING It ON.
I thought the question was entirely fair and was a good opportunity for Obama to respond to the Congressional extremists. “How do you respond to your critics” is within bounds and it isn’t wise to let that kind of stuff be thrown around without a response. Obama did a great job answering. To NYT’s credit, they posted the entire transcript and followup instead of taking it out of context and summarizing/fabricating, like the Washington Post likes to do. I wish he’d started out with “No, I am not a socialist and the suggestion is preposterous.” So the dumbazz TV anchors like David Gregory and Chuck Todd could actually understand. Remember this.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/2/128648963286436245.jpg
The whole accusation of socialism is so odd.
Everything the government pays for is a socialist program. This includes public roads, public schools, polics, defence spending, NASA, the food and drug administration etc… etc… etc…
Ironically, the Republicans under Bush grew the government an incredible amount when they created the department of homeland security.
Yet, its these same Republicans, who now cry socialism.
huh?!?
- Paul
Cute poster there, tena. I’d never seen it.
Baker is not the only NYT reporter who gets things out of wack. Somehow the NYT has this reputation for being No 1 in their field. In recent years there have been too many pieces from a number of them (Stolberg, Zeleny, Nagourney, etc, etc) that give of a strong whiff of No 2. — I took my cue from sgw
A quick bit of Canadian info on “socialized” important to understand as the Obama administration heads towards reorganization of medical delivery and insurance…
The American right has and will continue to launch a propaganda campaign against “socialized medicine”. Part of that propaganda will reference the Canadian experience. But the references will be warped or false in most cases.
Canadians are very satisfied with our medical programs. One proof of this is that no political party would dare to forward a platform which would seek to overturn the system we have. There electoral chances would be decimated. That’s true in Britain and Europe as well as evidenced by the fact it hasn’t ever happened.
Those are handy things to remember as this debate ratchets up. In the “free market of ideas”, this is an idea that has won out everywhere in the west except for the US.
(pardon the ‘there’/'their’ substitution…I do that a lot…it’s because I was once beat up by a gang of anglo-saxons and I came to hate their language)
Bernie, do you know of a good site with factual information about the Canadian health system? Like you, I anticipate a flood of disinformation from the Republicans, and would like to be armed with good information ready for the debunking. I have in mind maybe some polling and also some data on wait times for elective procedures (a favorite theme on the Republican side) and maybe the overall cost and health status. That would be helpful.
So what if he is a socialist. Everything Capitalists want us to do is based on a co-operative Socialist model. One thing Capitalists refuse to co-operate on is Profit. Its time to change that as well.
thought the question was entirely fair and was a good opportunity for Obama to respond to the Congressional extremists
There is only one response that will kill this entire stupid meme = success. If Obama’s rescue package works, then nobody will give a damn.
Yes Tena, I agree. But I don’t think it’s wise to let that characterization hang out there for very long without Obama himself addressing it. I think a “How do you respond to your critics” question is entirely fair for a mainstream journalist to ask. Obama was wise to address it at length, and the question presented a good opportunity to do that. I’m the first one to rail about idiotic press questions, I just don’t think this was one of them.
“There is only one response that will kill this entire stupid meme = success.”
100% correct. The question is, how do we define “success?” In the current circumstances, is it even rational to expect that we can return to a booming, robust economy with job creation rising along with exports, unemployment going down, and tax receipts going up before the end of Obama’s first term? I don’t there’s any chance in hell that’s going to take place until late in 2012 at the earliest.
Or is “success” better defined as being able to avoid falling into a clearly obvious depression?
late to this party but Greg-thank you so much for asking this and for posting on this. I really have zero respect for journalist who pretend they are asking deep philosophical questions when in reality they just want to push a right wing talking point. And to wit–the effing ignorance of what socialist *really is*.
to expect that we can return to a booming, robust economy with job creation rising along with exports, unemployment going down, and tax receipts going up before the end of Obama’s first term?
O I think so. That’s 4 years and I do believe we will be back on the road to recovery. We won’t have the wild amounts of money being thrown around that were thrown around when Commander CooCoo was in the WH, but the market will bounce back – it always does. Always.
And yes, Obama’s rescue is going to help the general population. if nothing else, confidence will start coming back once things bottom out.
As a friend of mine in the investment banking industry always used to say: The market will rise from this or some other point.
And so it will.
Greg, I’m surprised at you. The question carried the obvious suggestion that Obama’s spending priorities look like socialism TO THE QUESTIONER. The reporter’s response did nothing to excuse this framing. To the contrary, it makes it apparent that he could have easily framed at least two legitimate questions if that were his goal:
1) Do “the times and the solutions under consideration represent some sort of paradigm shift in our national thinking about the role of government in society?”
2) “In a moment of taxpayer bank bailouts and shifting tax burden proposals and exploding deficits and expansive health care and energy plans, what is the future of American-style capitalism?”
See, that was easy. But smearing was even easier.
Tom
This isn’t an area of expertise for me. Wikipedia has a pretty good page (there’s a very good chart down near the bottom comparing various nations’ systems…note that the US fares very poorly in most categories)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Wait_times
A couple of provisos on this piece…when Reagan was in power in he US and Thatcher in England, we had a comparable conservative in power in Canada, Brian Mulroney. He and his party (Progressive Conservative, one of Canada’s two major parties in the history of the nation along with the Liberal Party) became so despised that after their period in office that this party no longer exists. During his tenure, as an ideological matter, funding to the provinces for medical delivery was reduced and care has suffered since.
Another proviso…you’ll see the “Fraser Institute” noted under ‘criticisms’. It is a Canadian think tank set up by and funded by industry to promote rightwing ideology and policy and is precisely comparable to Cato or the AEI in America. It’s research and its publications are predictably skewed to match the ideology (that’s its purpose, after all). The “Commonwealth Fund” is also quoted but this is a group I know nothing about though the present head was Assistant Secretary for Health under Carter.
For purposes of debate, the “wait time” issue is a bit of a minefield, because stats on this stuff can be (and often is) pulled out of peoples’ bums. It’s been a fundamental attack point for the propaganda campaign because of this. And folks on the right will believe their stats and ignore others you might advance. On emergency room waits, anecdotally, I’ve lived in the US for four years now (Manhattan and Oregon) and wait times there have been no better than my experiences in Canada.
Better you should concentrate in debate on two things – the simple fact I noted above…that Canadians (like Europeans) will NOT allow significant changes to their systems. That’s a tough point to argue cogently against (the only argument you can expect on that is the “addicted to nanny-welfarism” but anyone advancing such a brainless and cliched argument isn’t worth talking to) and secondly, the stats you’ll find in that chart which shows pretty clearly how poorly America’s system compares in “infant mortality” and the expediture categories.
Likely, a reviewing of Moore’s film will give you additional information and points for debate.
Hope that helps somewhat.
Thanks for posting this. It was a BS question, and the defense of it doesn’t make it any less BS.
It’s part of the same tired approach to every difference of opinion: treat every side as equally valid. As Paul Krugman wrote (paraphrasing here): Republicans claim the earth is flat. Democrats disagree.
Utter baloney.
Just asking the question indicates that the reporter does not really know what socialism is. His acceptance of the term reflects at worst an uninformed bias and at best a lazy use of terms and definitions offered by others. Socialism is not a fungible term. It is both definable and quantifiable. However, in this case as in many others, the press seems to view definitions more as casual offhand characterizations rather than as having a sound, scientific basis.
If he knew what socialism is, he never would have asked the question in the manner he did.
In Europe this would have been a very odd question as well. Not because the word “socialist” is as compromised as it is in the US, but mainly because it would be perfectly understood by virtually everybody outside of the fringes that his policies are good ol’ ‘social democrat’ policies, or ‘social market policies’. Baker’s attempt was dumbing down the debate.
As for the Healthcare debate. I think that debate would be more helped when you would focus on systems which have more in common with Obama’s plan. Canada has a system based on the Beveridge style of universal healthcare. Obama’s plans have more in common with Bismarck types of universal healthcare systems. Especially the Dutch and the Swiss systems have had a lot of interest from US reformers.
Start with this for instance: http://bit.ly/j8029
If you want some insight into our “socialist” society, take a gander at the web article below, indicating that the Republicans’ own George W. Bush borrowed the most money from China to prop up his wars and his Fascist government, all the while telling Americans to “Spend, spend, spend.” So who’s selling (sold) us down the river? Now Republicans have decided that they will let America sink into chaos rather than give in on spending, when even David Brooks calls them misguided in their thinking, and he’s no socialist. If this is what we’re down to in this country, when a NYT reporter cannot ask a respectful question, then I can see why newspapers are in the toilet. I’m fed up with Rupert Murdoch’s America and “tell me what to think” media. They’re all a bunch of droids with talking points –that’s why we rejected their ideas last election. By the way, I’d rather be a Socialst Democrat than a Fascist Republican any day.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2910391
Thanks, Bernie. That was very helpful.
Some people consider Obama to be the anti-Christ.
So I guess it would have been legitimate for the NYT to also ask Obama if he is the anti-Christ?
Let’s face it: By having so done, the NYT *thinks* it gains “cred” with the right (um, yeah, sure), sells a lot more papers and creates a lot of buzz (to wit, this very piece by Greg) by employing the dreaded and utterly erroneous “s” word. Baker could have used any number of journalistic means to plumb Obama’s philosophical depths, but we can see the one he chose. Happenstance? Hardly. The Village knows it will never go entirely broke if it will do the right’s bidding.
These idiots do NOT know the difference between Socialism and Communism.
Further proof of this is in their argument against Health Care Reform.
They are trying to say that there will be long lines and rationing of Health Care if Obama’s plan is passed.
This is no such thing in socialized medicine, they are recalling Communist Russia.
The problem is…that none of the tough questions were ever asked of Bush nor of the current GOP base. It still feels like the GOP controls everything. When will this end?
I believe it was a fair question..and should be looked at as an opportunity for Obama to clear the air as to his view of his policies..This is America and anyone shhould be able to ask anything..I think it’s interesting that he called back..was he covering his u know what..just in case it wasn’t percieved as an adequate answer.
What’s ironic is that if the reporter had just asked the question he was trying to get at, “whether the times and the solutions under consideration represent some sort of paradigm shift in our national thinking about the role of government in society, what is the future of American-style capitalism?” He might have, you know, gotten the answer to his question.
By framing the question using the word socialist, he received the most obvious answer imaginable (virtually every politician outside of Bernie Sanders is going to deny being a socialist), and instead of getting Obama to expound on his poltical philosophy, Obama (understandably) became defensive, wanted to end the line of questioning, and painted himself as no different than any other president. I don’t doubt that the reporter had a serious goal in mind when he asked the question, I just don’t think he did his goal justice with his framing.
Some people are obsessed and live in dire fear of so-called *socialism* because they unconsciously associate it with dictatorship and authoritarianism. They feel they will lose all of their freedoms under the Bill of Rights, and a controlling dictator will come to power.
But they completely miss the fact that a large percentage of the U.S. economy is by definition, socialism. This includes the police and fire dept, public schools, libraries, hospitals, post office, health dept, local, state, and federal governments, and the biggest *socialistic* entity of them all: the military.
President Reagan’s military spending budget was inflated by billions of dollars. It can thus be said that Reagan was the biggest-spending *socialist* of the late 20th century.
Standing in line at a Cracker Barrel, heard a man talking and swearing very, very, loud to another gentleman about what a socialist Mr. Obama was and yes, “He hopes he fails.” He continued on, “I pay my way, don’t expect the government to bail me out. The man was about my age so he probably collects social security, is on medicare, drives our highways, crosses our bridges, and just maybe, he had someone in his family that went to a trade school or college on the GI Bill, etc. Do you think he has informed the government, thanks, but no thanks! It’s sad that people are listening to talking heads and aren’t reading or educating themselves on what has been going on for the last 30 years in our country but are blaming President Obama for the state of our country. It’s not like it happened since President Obama took office!
WAG, just as every American should be free to ask such questions, so too must we be free to question the arguably agenda-driven motives of the questioner.
No one challenges Baker’s right to probe President Obama’s political philosophy, and I agree that it did/does present the president a golden opportunity to expand and clarify. I simply would add that Baker’s framing of the question appeared intended to lend MSM credibility to the right’s bogus charges of “socialism,” and to place the president on the defensive — a “gotcha” moment of sorts, designed I believe to trip the president up, and not entirely unlike asking, “So, is it true that you’ve now *stopped* beating your wife?”.
They never asked Bush if his policies were fascist which would have been legitimate.
Tom
Take a look at Willem’s post and link too. Very helpful.
Why the NYT, and other news corporations are financially insoluble…the question is
NAWHT “are you a socialist, a liberal or a progressive, Mr. President?”
BUHTT, “where are we, where are we going and how do we get there?”
Who CARES what the faux controversy over what the solution is called, implied, or not called!!
If it works, call it whatever the heck you want and call it a day, already.
Is Baker the same NYT guy who, at Obama’s first press conference, asked (essentially), “At what point did you decide Hillary was a diplomatic dunce and start thinking she would be a great secretary of state?”? If so, his “socialist” question is entirely consistent with his sound-bite approach to interviewing.
The word “socialist” is being bandied about by anyone and everyone, most of whom have no idea of what it means. So, some questions. How do you define socialism? Do we have any socialism now? Why do you consider socialism bad? When did the word “socialist” become a dirty word? What is the opposite of socialism? Do you know what you’re talking about, or are you just repeating something you’ve heard?
if you really want to know why the NYT would ask if Obama is a socialist, read the book “What Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman. After reading What Liberal Media? you will understand that the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right—regardless of how “liberal” any given reporter may be.
Questioning authority is of course the duty of all journalists. The problem here is that the guy was asking STUPID questions.
His question came across as a validation of GOP-smear talking points.
Like the poster above, I immediately thought of the old “smear/question”, “So, when did you stop beating your wife?” Inexcusable, and it brands Baker a rank amateur at best, or at worst, a right-wing plant. I’m surprised he didn’t ask him if he was an American citizen – after all, rabid conspiracy theorists on the right still think it’s a “controversy!”
A better question might have been, “The right keeps labelling you a socialist. How would you respond to this loaded accusation, and why do you believe this crisis demands extensive government intervention?”
What is wrong with being a socialist?? Oh yeah because poor people get to live a decent life, everyone has health care, no war, clean environment. I am sick and tired of all these fascist republicans stuffing their pompous ideology down our throats. America needs a socialist party , that is how we got the 8 hour work day, the minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. The republicans and democrats sucked in by multinational corporations are trying to erase our real history- a history of resistance to their corporate lacky status.
idiots.
we do not have a liberal media or a conservative media.
we have a coporate media. bought and sold for. they may cloak themselves in republican or democrat language but in the end they all worshiping wal mart and the big corporations. we need a revolution in this country. with the unemployment rising, we might just get it. stop being brainwashed by this free market propaganda promoted by millionaires and killers. We need something like venezuela , where the popularly elected a socialist party into office. the corporate media monopoly should be broken up. we need community radio. no more dictatorship of the market on our lifes. no more corporate advertisement ramming down our throats. people are getting thrown out of their homes as we speak , america is going down the toilet because of all this hyper corporate capitalism! you people are a bunch of ******** on this website.
Don’t forget that Roland Hedley is reduced to twittering so as to not follow in the footsteps of Rick Redfern. The media is a bunch of seriously craven twits -like Hedley.
Had he answered honestly, he would have said, “no I’m not a socialist, I’m a communist”.
someone should ask mr. baker if he actually knows what the definition of socialism is; nobody who actually understands what socialism is about, would seriously consider asking that question. i’m also curious if the times asked that same question of president bush, given the substantial growth of government and spending during his term.
they legitimized a right wing talking point, and this defense is absurd. they might as well have asked him if he really is an america hating secret terrorist? “some people” make that claim as well. folks were also “just asking” for clarification as to how people defined their political ideology, when they asked if people were communists during the mccarthy era.
Mostly people have no idea what Socialism is, not even the dufi Republicans in congress.
What President Obama should have said is ” what is your definition of Socialist”? I am Wiccan and when someone asks me if I am a Witch, I always ask what is their definition…because it is always wrong. I can then right their view. Facts matter…and Obama is no Socialist and I do not kill furry animals or kiss the hind end of a being I do not believe in.
Your a little late with such a question to President Obama.
The question should have read, President Bush do you think your an inept capitalist?
Most disturbing is that so many correspondents believe there are questions that should not be asked. Along with opinions that may no longer be expressed for fear of offending and views that are “unacceptable” because a particular group disagrees, these are the treacherous waters of censored speech and thought. Shame on you. Similarly, shame on those writers who happily call George Bush a Fascist while expressing outrage at the suggestion that the President could be a socialist.
I too found this a strange question, akin to the “Have you stopped beating your wife? category. That said, I am even more puzzled by the rationale for asking the question, to explore the President’s political beliefs? What was the background? Within what context? What is this word “socialist” mean? Has this word “socialist” been used in either an attempt to categorize your programs or used by political opponents to unfairly mislead people as to your beliefs and agenda? I did not hear a single background question asked, nor did I hear a simple disclaimer as to whether the NYT was attempting to carry water for the President’s political opponents, nor, the obvious one: Michelle Bachmann, representative of Minnesota’s 6th district has called you a “socialist” and a “xxxxxx” do you think you are a “socialist” or an “xxxxxx”?
The interviewer treated this as a foregone conclusion without establishing any basis or context for the question. Therfore we are left with a lame question without context, without any possible serious response. If that is the best question the present staff can ask, I would suggest that you fire them today if not sooner. To defend this type of claptrap by saying its a legitimate question ignores what a piss poor question it really was! What potential did this question have for revealing anything? None! Who would it prompt discussion of the topic? Well, if you have some bright 2nd and 3rd graders around maybe they can turn it into something.
As it stands this line of questioning has as much value as giving the Lehmann bros. $209 mil when they bankrupt their company as opposed to $201 mil when they make record breaking profits. It was a lame question displaying the interviewers incompetence as a reporter. The question could have told us so much and the answer so much more. Instead, we have a what do you have against truth type statement. It only tells us that the reporter is low grade and his management even lamer.
If you want good batch of reporters either contact me or any local paper that has asked real questions. Stay away from “people” or the prestigious writer places like the NYT home of fiction!
Retromega
Someone like the Times needs to ask the question because most of America doesn’t know the difference between Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Democracy, as long as they can “belly up to the Federal trough”, it’s O.K. with them. And — nevermind who has to pay for it just as long as it’s not them! The only thing missing from Obama’s answer was “it all depends on what you mean by Socialism?”
The U.S. is both a socialist and capitalist nation. Our schools, police departments, fire departments and government agencies are socialist. Isn’t socialism is based on the common good? Is that a bad thing? The problems this country faces now are more a product of our unbridled capitalist side. It is our capitalist side that has gone out of control. Our socialist side must play a bigger role in the future to bring things back in balance.
Did you ask Bush if he was socialist when he gave tax break to only the rich folks?
I think the writer from the NY times and Republicans should not use any government sources like roads and especially the Republican policticians , because we the people pay their paycheck, medical and their retirement. If the Republicans do not believe in government , then why did they chose to work for the government? They make no sense. Government has it place in any society.
Baker often casts President Obama in an unattractive light with a whiff of implied skepticism. It is in his writing and in his TV appearances which was not so apparent during the campaign. I find myself often thinking the NYT is still sore that Hillary didn’t win as a lot of the reporting about President is framed in a way that is unhelpful with some attitude. i’ve been wondering if Baker is Republican.
Here is a site you should check out:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Echo_chamber
It details how the Republicans have been manipulating the media-and public opinion-for years. Note the resemblance to Nazi propaganda techniques.
Finally–I SEE that someone is “at home” in their mind,at the Times. Anything that is REALITY,& the EXPOSING of–this insane, so called “Party of Death== Democrats” ALWAYS trys to turn it around on someone else-that IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Yeah,maybe Mr. Perry is a ‘republican’. I’m wondering if any democrats actually have any blood in them or not. I have my doubts that any would even BLEED,if cut or injured. Joe–the Plumber actually brought up to Obama the same thing,as Mr. Baker said–Socialism. Do ALL you Dems REALLY THINK that you’re going to get away with stealing our country & money,etc. & turning it around to any way YOU want it to go? Maybe–ALL YOU –Dems,should be looking forwards to some CRISIS’ that, for once, you didn’t MAKE HAPPEN! Maybe the Lord God will show you all just WHO the REAL BOSS IS! The REAL Messiah’s name is NOT Barak Hussein Obama! AND–let me tell you all–you WILL BOW your knee to the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth–sooner or later! ALL you Dems are about is ***,perversions, hurting innocent ones,(babies in the wombs & little children & ANYONE who can’t fight back!) AND stealing & LIEING & money! Your time is so short!
You know,you can ALWAYS COUNT ON the LIARS to accuse the truthful ones–of EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Its not the Republicans who are manipulating the media–its the devil in the Democrats & EVERYBODY KNOWS IT! HAVE A GOOD TIME,because your time is almost UP! You WILL have to ANSWER to the REAL GOD of ABRAHAM,ISAAC & JACOB!
a recent description of “socialised” detroit was appalling, depicting the money infusions to cure the problems there as a total failure. who could argue that the obama money flood would wind up any different?
Judilynn, if you are a comic, your material still needs a lot of work. If you are serious, well, you did a bangup job reminding us that one of the biggest problems we face in this country is how to combat and defuse the certainty and blind rage like yours that makes any dialogue impossible. It seems to be growing.
Per all the democrats advice on how to define socialism, I took the time to look it up in a non-biased websters dictionary. Ok, here we go: “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry and an economic system based on state ownership of capital.”
This is unfortunately, a theory that is currently in practice. As Obama attempts correct the economic crisis and “fix” the health care issue, more and more privately owned systems, banks, etc, are comming under control of the White House and Congress. I mean, does the white house really need to control the Census?
Honestly democrats, please try to see the bigger picture here. I voted for McCain and am proud of it, but to the people who voted for Obama, I think you voted for someone you didn’t know or didn’t understand how far he would go. As a first year senator from a corrupt state like Illinois, with a track record in congress of voting “present” on 80% of the bills while he was there, having never actually written a bill on his own, and having never run a company, I find it hard to believe that he should be in charge of anything!! On a side note, this is where a leader from the military is ideal, not because they tend to be republican, but because they know what it means to command – to lead a company, division, corp, etc – they know what it takes to be in charge. I’m sorry dems – you made the wrong choice!
This question about Socialism that the reporter asked was perfect. All Obama had to say was “no.” But he didn’t. Maybe if he had a teleprompter he would have known what to say!
Josh, nice try. Really, but if you voted for McCain you also voted for his vice-president. And you’re lecturing us about Obama?!
Did you read the definition of socialism before copy and pasting it? A socialist advocates for state ownership of all industry and state ownership of capital. Have you ever heard a single Democrat advocate this? Have you ever heard Obama advocate it? No, of course not, because despite all the scary prattle from Newsweek and the right, we aren’t even close to socialism by any definition.
Democrats generally believe that the government should only step in when the individual and the private sector is unable to provide a necessary service in a way that benefits all the people of the United States. You may be too blinded by ideology to understand the suffering and the wasted resources our present health care system has resulted in, but most compassionate people realize something has to be done and if that something is government direction of the health care system to insure every American is covered, so be it. The private sector has had decades to get it right and it has blown it. Don’t go throwing “socialist!” bombs hoping to scare people off. The government has in fact had a pretty good track record administering health care (VA and Medicare).
Trakker, I admit that Palin was a bad choice. If he needed a woman to offset Clinton, there were better choices out there. But I would still rather have that than what we are going through right now. And believe me, I understand that if we had elected McCain, by this point, we probably would have the economy acting the same way. Plus, he might have also passed away by now with all the pressure (believe me, i know).
And yes, I did in fact read the definition, and honestly, Obama isn’t disagreeing with it, he just isn’t denying it. As for the health care system, yes, it needs to be revamped, along with lots of other programs. And we are not that far away from become socialized. You’ll see, it will be easier and easier to accept the things that the government is controlling. It will become easier to rationalize government programs as things get worse. And then one scary morning, we’ll all realize how much liberty we have given up. And just because we are using the word “socialism,” doesn’t mean we are following the doctrine.
Second, I’ve come to realized pretty quickly with this president that he and his administration understand all too well that Bush’s approval rating was horrible by the time he left office. All the Obama people have to do is mention the words, “reversing Bush policies,” and everyone comes on board with it. Bush, in my opinion, destroyed not just himself, but the entire republican party, which made it easy for Obama to step in as “savior and messiah.”
I will agree with you that most democrats would prefer not to step in until there is a problem, but this is where the fear of crossing the asile comes in. We all saw what happened with Liberman – he agreed to one of Bush’s policies and the left exiled him. No one is going to do that again, especially around reelection time. There are finally some moderates on both sides willing to talk again, and hopefully that will continue, but until the happens, the left and the right will continue to move further away from each other and the majority party will win – because there is nothing that is going to be able to stop legislation in either the house or senate.
Third, I know that pork barrel politics have always existed, but was this really the proper place to put it, in a stimulus bill that will cost 787 Billion!?!? I would like to hear what some democrats think of that. Because I can’t imagine that any American is going to be happy with $13 in stimulus a week, and then have that taxed by our states.
To your point about ideology. Yes, I find myself voting republican sometimes, but not everytime. I listen to both sides before making any decision, and I cannot and will not agree with Obama who thinks that this bill will do anything to the economy. I know Bush spent lots of money, but Obama cannot hide the fact that he has spent more than any other president to date, and hide that under the rhetoric of “programs we should of had in place years ago.” How long do you think Americans will be paying off this bill? Hmmm…
Don’t come to me with this “Obama is above suspicion” thing!! Don’t come to me with accusations of how my ideology is blinding me. It will only get easier to point fingers at each other. Come to me with facts. I haven’t heard to many dems with facts these days, its all about “bush did this, bush did that.” Tell me what you see Obama doing and answer me how our kids are going to pay for this bill!
Richard Nixon, 1974: “Are you running for something?”
Dan Rather, “No, sir, are you?”
Moral: it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Good grief! So now we are criticizing people for even daring to ask the messiah a question? What kind of nonsense is that? Talk about censorship. Look, if Obama doesn’t think a question is appropriate all he has to do is say, “I don’t think that question is appropriate and it does not deserve an answer.” Clearly, HE thought it was appropriate and tired to answer it…twice. Personally, I would like to know the answer to the question. I would like to know how Obama defines socialism. It’s a fair question and deserves an answer. There are various stripes of socialism. I’d just like to know where my President stands. Why is that so terrifying to the Obama apologists?
Trakker, your definition of socialism is actually a definition of communism. Webster defines communism this way: “any economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole”. Socialism (according to Webster) is the step between capitalism and communism.
Webster defines socialism this way: “any of various theories or systems of ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.” Or, as Barack says, “Let’s spread the wealth around.”
Secondarily, Webster defines socialism as “a political movement for establishing such a system.”
If the liberals don’t like the label “socialism”, then just abandon the practice and we won’t be having this discussion. As my grandfather used to say, “When you throw a stick at a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit usually yelps the loudest.”
I just find it interesting that on must be either for or against Republicans or Democrats; for or against one President or another. It is not a comparison or a competition. It is isssue by issue. It’s okay to have an allegiance to a candidate. But don’t let ANYONE’s light blind you so much that you agree with their decisions for no other reason that the light is so bright.
Socialism –
Theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Most of you people are just plain mis-informed or willfully ignornant of the facts. I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the reporter’s question, or the meaning behind it. What is important is Obama’s answer measured against his deeds. Personally, I think it is obvious that the man’s words do not always match his deeds. Socialist? Yes he is. Anyone willing to remove themselves from the teets of the federal cow long enough will understand.
Who on earth gave Josh the idea that Webster’s dictionary is non-bias. I personally have doubts about conspiracy theories that say that groups like the pro-life lobby have been promoting the purchase of publication companies in order to change dictionary definitions, so as to help their cause. However, anyone that believes that dictionaries are written by god and must be infallible, should either start questioning god, or come to terms with the fact that lexicographers are not bound by anything like an oath of objectivity and therefore can be just as politically motivated as any press publication (there was a time, apparently, when journalists were trained in being non-partisan and only report the news and not the owner’s opinion, but rarely now). To actually pick Webster’s for the definition is either unfortunate or calculated. By calculated I refer to goffer hacks such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who have clearly been given editorial orders to push the Webster definition of socialism as “the word of god”. If they mean by this, the word of Rupert Murdoch and the right non-intelligentsia, they are doing their jobs well. Webster’s changing of definitions to suit current political trends (Webster’s is not the only culprit, but possibly the most blatant) covers such volitile subjects as “same *** marriage” and “terrorism”. For those that think the word socialism is close to communism, please refer to national socialism and be confused. For those that think that the ownership or control of certain aspects of a country by government is left-wing, should refer to Margaret Thatcher’s unwavering defence of Britain’s National Health Service, or the people’s control of New York’s Fire Department. Remember 9/11 and the job this so called “socialist” run organsation did on that day, or would you prefer the old system of privately run fire fighters as portrayed very well in the film “Gangs of New York” – basically criminals. Speaking of criminals, isn’t the reason why the vast majority of americans are fully behind the temporary governmental control of financial institutions is because the right-wing “free-market” policies of the last 30 years have created so many criminals that society has realised that, like children, business people need a little control to keep them on the tracks. Oh, and there’s an interesting word – “society”. Anyone considered that this word is closer to socialism than the word communism. Now come on, even Sean Hannity might admit to being part of one of those, maybe.