RFK: Obama is an Indentured Servant of the Coal Industry – UPDATED: Did He Say what ABC Reported?
UPDATED BELOW
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. blasted President Obama yesterday by calling him an “indentured servant of the coal industry.” Is this worthy of a controversy?
No it is not. Unlike Ed Morrissey – whom I great respect, I’m sorry Ed, but I have to disagree with you on this one -I do not believe that RFK used “indentured servant” as a synonym for “slave.” The two are completely different terms. A slave was bought against his will, and had to serve for life. An indentured servant, however, worked for someone for a specific time out of his own free will. He got something for his work (money), had to work hard for a couple of years until he had basically repaid the debt, after which he went on to make his own fortune.
I believe that this is what RFK tried to say about Obama and others like him (note that he did not talk about Obama alone): they are owned by the coal industry because they allowed themselves to be bought. Obama and other politicians wanted to become successful, and were willing to “sell out” to the industry.
That is RFK’s point. Slavery has nothing to do with it.
Having said all that, I do agree with Ed when he argues that if a conservative had used this phrase, the left would have shouted “RACIST!” immediately. That is true, and it is yet another sign of the inability of liberal bloggers and pundits to use rational arguments rather than inflammatory language in the political debate.
UPDATE
Did RFK truly call Obama an indentured servant? Writing for the Huffington Post, Josh Nelson gives me the impression that ABC may be guilty of… creative reporting. ABC updated it post but kept the headline. It also published a partial transcript of the interview – it gives me the mpression that you can indeed interpret RFK’s words differently. Read it all, and make up your own mind.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
