Losing touch with reality

Some people are very “good” at taking excerpts of full quotes or speeches out of context to prove a point. Others just like to interpret things that are actually said into things they wish had been said, because the original doesn’t satisfy them.

What Obama really said back in 2001:

You know, maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. … You know, the court’s just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just — it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally — you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts — I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

…and

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try 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.

What these have been interpreted to mean:

Sean Hannity: On the October 27 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity, referring to the 2001 interview, falsely claimed that “Obama actually believes the Constitution is defective because it doesn’t allow judges to redistribute wealth.” He went on to claim that “if he becomes president, [Obama] wants the Supreme Court and other federal courts to literally have the power to spread the wealth around and redistribute the wealth. Those are his words, his voice.”

No, no those are not his words or his voice, Hannity. Those are yours, pulled from your ass, which your head doesn’t leave much room for.

BAKER (Chris Baker from his 10/27 KTLK broadcast): Yeah, it’s too bad you kind of stuck with the Constitution as it was. It’s a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Can you believe that? Now, Joe:

No, I can’t Chris Baker, because that’s not what he said. Notice phrases such as “essential constraints” and the whole tone of that quote which suggests Obama merely stating a fact, not lamenting it.

And then there those who attempt this, but fall so short that they actually make so little sense that you can’t help but feel really bad for them.
Another nugget of wtf from Baker’s October 27th broadcast:

(begin clip)

BARBARA WEST (WFTV Orlando news anchor): How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: That’s a question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He’s talking about giving the middle class –

(end clip)

BAKER: Yeah. Thanks a lot. Thanks for that, Joe. Nice job. All right, so there you go, it’s out. Now we’re gonna have to have that discussion today. Because I mean that’s — that’s pretty clear. And I think that once we get into this, there’s going to be a lot of people that are going to owe Michele Bachmann an apology.

Okay, what? What’s pretty clear, Baker? What are we going to have to discuss? Get INTO WHAT? Does anyone know what he’s talking about? Did he get distracted by a shiny object?

In case you missed the actual interview with Biden and his entire response to that question, here it is, because I think it’s important to watch and read these things completely before forming your opinions. He clearly isn’t confirming Barbara’s assumption that Obama is a Marxist, so I don’t really get what Baker thought he was doing here.

These questions were ridiculous and I don’t fault Biden for his response to them. She’s being applauded for asking the tough questions. Really? These aren’t tough questions. These are questions rooted in lies, gossip and total BS, disguised as hard hitting questions from a tough reporter doing her job. Perhaps she’d be more believable if her husband wasn’t a GOP flack.

(mediamatters link via MNSpeak.)